Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Anna Yolei]

Nope, Denise Crosby left on her own accord, wanting to branch out in acting.

Considering the audience demographic, I would think doing Playboy would have brought some much needed attention to the show.

[ABay]

Here's my UO: I don't care that Ben Affleck asked to have references to a slave-owning ancestor removed from a show or that Henry Louis Gates agreed to it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Here's my UO: I don't care that Ben Affleck asked to have references to a slave-owning ancestor removed from a show or that Henry Louis Gates agreed to it.

 

I agree. Who the hell cares what his ancestor did? Evil is not genetic, and whatever your ancestors did is totally irrelevant, especially if it happened centuries ago. 

[anony mouse]

Here's my UO: I don't care that Ben Affleck asked to have references to a slave-owning ancestor removed from a show or that Henry Louis Gates agreed to it.

 

Agreed. I don't expect these types of shows to cover every past relative. It's not hard-hitting Woodward and Bernstein journalism, after all. It's just supposed to be semi-educational reality tv.

[HalcyonDays]

Here's my UO: I don't care that Ben Affleck asked to have references to a slave-owning ancestor removed from a show or that Henry Louis Gates agreed to it.

 

I completely agree. I mean, it's not like the public is going to think Ben Affleck himself owned slaves, No. Why do people think they are responsible/should be judged on the actions of people who are long dead and you never ever met ever but just happen to be related to you? Just strange. I guess it's all Hollywood PR and appearing 100% blemish-free.

 

Now if Affleck turned around and said, "Cool, my ancestor owned slaves," well then...that is a serious issue.

[Amello]

Evil is not genetic, and whatever your ancestors did is totally irrelevant, especially if it happened centuries ago. 

 

So soap operas aren't real life? Looks like I'll need to do some adjusting.

[Sandman]

I don't care that Affleck had an ancestor who was a slave-owner; he obviously thinks his public image would be tarnished by that historical fact. I can't say that I care that much about him, really, but I do find it distasteful that his image mattered enough to him that he wanted to cover it up. Does he think the public will imagine having such ancestry makes him a slave owner? That seems kind of ... dumb.

[anony mouse]

I don't care that Affleck had an ancestor who was a slave-owner; he obviously thinks his public image would be tarnished by that historical fact. I can't say that I care that much about him, really, but I do find it distasteful that his image mattered enough to him that he wanted to cover it up. Does he think the public will imagine having such ancestry makes him a slave owner? That seems kind of ... dumb.

 

I think it's more that this was going to air right during his peak movie promo media tours for Gone Girl, and didn't want to take focus away from the movie - but he can't say that without looking like a jerk, so he has to go the OMG!ashamed route.

[ribboninthesky1]

I've never watched it, but I'm pretty sure there's a way to delve into your ancestry, good and bad, without doing the show.  Not sure why Ben didn't go that route instead. I think the backlash is overblown, but I don't feel sorry for Affleck, either. 

Edited April 23, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[ganesh]

Agreed. Stuff like that is going to get out. It's the wanting to cover it up that's distasteful. You say it once, "I feel terrible about this and embarrassed. There's not much else I can say."

 

Anderson Cooper's ancestors owned slaves and no one is saying anything.  

[proserpina65]

Stuff like that is going to get out. It's the wanting to cover it up that's distasteful.

 

I find nothing distasteful in Affleck requesting that the info not be used.  Had he been rude or obnoxious about it?  Maybe then.  But, to the best of our knowledge, his request was not rude or obnoxious.  What I do find distasteful (well, actually pretty f*ing offensive) is someone hacking private emails and making them public; the only exception would be whistleblowers publishing information that is truly in the public's best interest, and L'affair Affleck doesn't even begin to come close to such a situation.  This might not be as bad as leaking private photos but it's in the same realm.

[ganesh]

I find it distasteful that he wanted editorial control of an independently funded documentary. Presumably there was some kind of contact signed and he probably was aware of potential outcomes.

[The Crazed Spruce]

My unpopular opinion is this Affleck ancestry discussion should probably move back to the Celebrity News thread.

[SmithW6079]

Am I the only one who actually liked Tasha Yar on TNG? If that is true that....surprises me. Strong, intelligent female. Fine she didn't do too much but it was the first season....no one did. Still surprises me to find so much hate directed towards her.

I read the following comments too, after this, and I have to say, I loved Tasha Yar. I would have preferred that Worf die (he's on my list of "Trek" characters I hate, especially because TNG became so Klingon-centric over the years, or as an aged Kirk says in "Star Trek: So Very Tired" [courtesy of "The Simpsons"]: "Again with the Klingons.")

 

I loved when they found a way to bring Denise Crosby back via funky time travel, and I wish we could have seen more of Sela. 

[proserpina65]

I would have preferred that Worf die

 

My only argument with this is that then we wouldn't have gotten the awesome Klingon pre-wedding ritual on DS9.  And I don't want to live in a world without Miles and Julian chanting "Kill Worf!" under their breath at the wedding.

[Chaos Theory]

Evil is not genetic, and whatever your ancestors did is totally irrelevant, especially if it happened centuries ago.

I've had some hinky relatives. If only they survived into old age and not their spouses I'd actually have money right now. Stupid kind and/or spendy spouses.

[Rockstar99435]

Some people see what they want to see, and that extends to television.  It took me the longest time to adjust to posters claiming something did or didn't happen when the exact, unambiguous opposite occurred on screen. Now, I just assume they're trolling or lazy, and ignore them.   

 

And sometimes the scene is presented clearly, but over the summer, the show runners come out and do a ton of interviews claiming, "oh no. You missed understood Spike when he said 'I want to be able to give that bitch what she has coming.' He was definitely not taking about getting his chip removed so he could violently attack her and her friends in order to punish her. He totally wanted to get his soul back so he could date Buffy. He meant bitch in a loving way. Seriously. For real. You're just a big dummy who didn't understand our superior writing."

[Cobalt Stargazer]

And sometimes the scene is presented clearly, but over the summer, the show runners come out and do a ton of interviews claiming, "oh no. You missed understood Spike when he said 'I want to be able to give that bitch what she has coming.' He was definitely not taking about getting his chip removed so he could violently attack her and her friends in order to punish her. He totally wanted to get his soul back so he could date Buffy. He meant bitch in a loving way. Seriously. For real. You're just a big dummy who didn't understand our superior writing."

 

Man, Rockstar99435, you have no idea how hard I was holding myself back from saying just that, so thank you for saying it for me. You really are a rock star. :-D

[ribboninthesky1]

And sometimes the scene is presented clearly, but over the summer, the show runners come out and do a ton of interviews claiming, "oh no. You missed understood Spike when he said 'I want to be able to give that bitch what she has coming.' He was definitely not taking about getting his chip removed so he could violently attack her and her friends in order to punish her. He totally wanted to get his soul back so he could date Buffy. He meant bitch in a loving way. Seriously. For real. You're just a big dummy who didn't understand our superior writing."

 

True. And it's why I don't pay attention to postmordems and what showrunners/cast say about their shows.  That said, for me, what you described is distinct from discussing the episode after it aired, and declaring "Z is what happened" when "A" is clearly how it played out on screen.  That's what I was referring in my original comment.  

[scarynikki12]

I like reading what writers and producers have to say about their product but it tends to work better when said product is finished.  Rowling talking about Harry Potter?  I'm first in line to read how she crafted the story and characters and her intentions with both.  Spielberg talking about the making of Jaws?  I'm eager to read why certain changes were made and how he shot the USS Indianapolis scene.  Roddenberry giving an interview about the societal influences on Star Trek?  Let me grab the popcorn.  A behind the scenes person (writer, producer, director, executive, actor, etc) talking about a movie, TV, or book series that is still in process?  It depends.  I've noticed that if the person in question is talking about how they approached the project, without making assumptions on how it was perceived, then it can be really interesting insight.  It only truly bothers me when they are aware of audience response and are trying to change minds before the next installment. 

 

The Spike example is perfect for this.  If the producers, directors, writers, and/or Marsters had given interviews where they talked about approaching that finale with a level of ambiguity, maybe because they feared spoilers getting leaked, then great.  Everyone involved with the conception and execution of those scenes could talk about that and it could have been really interesting.  Instead we got interviews that were designed to convince us that we'd all suffered a mass hallucination and Spike really did want his soul back so that he could be with Buffy rather than finding a way to punish her for successfully fighting off his rape attempt.  I've always thought the interview retconning was an example of the producers regretting some of their choices for Spike and not wanting to put any energy into trying to make it work for the next season.  At some point they decided that Spike's obsession with Buffy and her post-resurrection need for self destruction were merely the foundation for a real relationship (rather than a formula for horrific murder) and ignored everything they'd done previously.  And the shippers ran with it (I can think of three I know in real life who were thrilled with those interviews because they also interpreted those scenes the way so many of us did and couldn't handle the idea that their favorite character just might be a monster after all), so the show kept up the retcon.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The Spike example is perfect for this.  If the producers, directors, writers, and/or Marsters had given interviews where they talked about approaching that finale with a level of ambiguity, maybe because they feared spoilers getting leaked, then great.  Everyone involved with the conception and execution of those scenes could talk about that and it could have been really interesting.  Instead we got interviews that were designed to convince us that we'd all suffered a mass hallucination and Spike really did want his soul back so that he could be with Buffy rather than finding a way to punish her for successfully fighting off his rape attempt.

 

And in the final season, a similar instance took place when Buffy uttered the line, "Why does everyone think I'm still in love with Spike?" when previously there was never the slightest indication that she had any feeling for him other than revulsion. There were really only two choices - either the writers stuck that in there to make the shippers happy, and from what I remember it worked, or SMG flubbed the line, and if SMG flubbed the line, then they should have given her another take to get it right than leave me with the revolting idea that Buffy genuinely felt something for Spike besides extremely grudging tolerance.

[Linderhill]

On the Mark Pellegrino front, I never saw him on Lost because I found the show incredibly boring (there's one UP), my first exposure to his acting was when he was on "Without a Trace" as a Russian mobster.  I believe he was in two episodes if my memory is correct.  One of the episodes his son had disappeared.  I enjoyed the performance so much that I almost didn't recognize him when he showed up on "Supernatural" and then later on "The Mentalist."  I enjoyed his performance on those shows -- he was great as Nick/Lucifer on Supernatural, you tell how tormented Nick was -- but never saw his performances on the other shows. 

 

On a completely different note, my unpopular opinion is that I don't give a crap about Game of Thrones, Mad Men or Breaking Bad, etc.  My favorite shows seem to be those that have slipped under the radar, "Justified,""Leverage,""Farscape,"and I still love "Supernatural."

[Chaos Theory]

On a completely different note, my unpopular opinion is that I don't give a crap about Game of Thrones, Mad Men or Breaking Bad, etc. My favorite shows seem to be those that have slipped under the radar, "Justified,""Leverage,""Farscape,"and I still love "Supernatural."

Then may I recommend "The Americans". It is on the top of my "The Best show you are probably not watching" list. Just ended its third season and it gets great reviews but no one watches it.

And just to keep the post on topic I didn't really care for Justified and that is usually my kind of show. Not sure why I didn't like it. And I hated Farscape another show I should have loved.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[ganesh]

I've turned very much into a purist. If TPTBs want to talk about the location of a scene or an actor saying how it was really cold out and they nailed the scene in one take, or even if something was ad libbed that's fine. 

 

I'm not talking about commentaries: I had the idea for this episode because such and such happened, so it's cool to see this actually made. 

 

Way way way way way too often, TPTBs use social media as an extension of the show. No. What's on the screen is the show. Make that good and the rest takes care of itself. 

[DeLurker]

I really don't think I should need to go to social media to have what I just saw explained to me by TPTB because if the message didn't come across in the scene/show, it is a fail.

 

If TPTB want to tap into social media and say how they are excited about an ep or storyline, great.  But if they get feedback that the viewing public doesn't agree and takes the time to let you know in your chosen social media forum, don't start calling the disagreers "haters".

[ganesh]

To keep it on topic, this is what really ruined The Mentalist. I got a three day ban at the other place because I called out their fakery. Everyone was citing social media as to what was going on with the show and not actually what was on the screen itself. 

 

Nothing against the host, but this is why The Talking Dead is a stupid show. I don't need to watch a show to tell me what's going on with the show that I'm actually watching.

 

Not to suck up, but Previouslytv has actually been very good about this. Whenever I've asked to not post/comment on external media *in an episode* thread, they've been 100% supportive. 

 

And you know what? TPTBs *lie* to cover for themselves when they screw up. Sorry, I'm not buying the garbage you're selling.

 

This typically happens when a show runs out of ideas and puts the leads together. I will go all in with my chips that you will hear the "Well, we've always felt it was there, and this is a natural progression of the characters." No. You ran out of ideas and milked your show for an extra season and don't really know what to do, cf., Mentalist again, but really, I hate to say it, The X Files. 

[Mulva]

I'm tired of being expected to go online forums, facebook, youtube, deleted scenes, etc. to keep up with a show. I watch TV to relax and be entertained, not to get homework assignments.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

And the shippers ran with it (I can think of three I know in real life who were thrilled with those interviews because they also interpreted those scenes the way so many of us did and couldn't handle the idea that their favorite character just might be a monster after all), so the show kept up the retcon.

 

My UO of the day is that I don't get the people who were cool with all the murders Spike committed but consider an attempted rape beyond the pale for him. Not to mention that you have to be in severe denial to claim that Spike (or any other vampire with strong sexual drive who preyed on humans successfully for a long time) wasn't a serial rapist, in addition to serial killer.

[opus]

Stop live tweeting/live blogging. Watch the show, then talk about it.

[CoderLady]

Stop live tweeting/live blogging. Watch the show, then talk about it.

 

No one gets a pass from me for this, but I have fond memories of Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica podcasts. Since SyFy ran the show twice in a night I'd watch the first showing then synch up his podcast for the second one. He was a real hoot, smoking cigs and drinking Scotch and being as enthusiastic about the show as anybody could ever be. But no -- if you're just a fan watching a show and typing, keep it to yourself.

Edited April 24, 2015 by CoderLady

[ribboninthesky1]

I'm tired of being expected to go online forums, facebook, youtube, deleted scenes, etc. to keep up with a show. I watch TV to relax and be entertained, not to get homework assignments.

 

Right? I can respect passionate fans doing it to get more out of the show, even if it's not my thing, but the story should be in the damn episode(s), as aired. I've been in discussions, and someone said, "There's a deleted scene on youtube about X, so it's canon..." Wha????? I can't.  To ganesh's point, most of my experience with such was TWOP.    

 

This typically happens when a show runs out of ideas and puts the leads together. I will go all in with my chips that you will hear the "Well, we've always felt it was there, and this is a natural progression of the characters." No. You ran out of ideas and milked your show for an extra season and don't really know what to do, cf., Mentalist again, but really, I hate to say it, The X Files. 

 

Not sure if it's always been this way, but I suspect the vast majority of showrunners fly by the seat of their pants with their shows.  Maybe they have a vision for the first (half of the) season, but afterwards, it's a crapshoot. Of course, mileage varies on whether that impacts the average viewer experience, but I don't have much patience for it.  

 

If I like a show, I'll actually watch it and pay attention to relevant details, so it annoys me immensely when certain dialogue or plot points are dropped or retconned because the showrunners changed their minds/forgot what they wrote (or in some cases, have moved on to other things).  Movies do this as well, but TV is notorious.  I assume due to the golden syndication ring.      

[meep.meep]

No one gets a pass from me for this, but I have fond memories of Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica podcasts. Since SyFy ran the show twice in a night I'd watch the first showing then synch up his podcast for the second one. He was a real hoot, smoking cigs and drinking Scotch and being as enthusiastic about the show as anybody could ever be. But no -- if you're just a fan watching a show and typing, keep it to yourself.

To each their own. ... I find his podcasts to be the worst things I have ever tried to listen to. They are the only commentaries put on the DVDs of the series - he comes across as a pompous drip who won't let anyone else get a word in.

[ABay]

The only extracurricular material I'll give a pass to is Lost Untangled. That was hilarious and I'm still pissed they didn't get the rights to put it on the DVD set.

[Guest]

To each their own. ... I find his podcasts to be the worst things I have ever tried to listen to. They are the only commentaries put on the DVDs of the series - he comes across as a pompous drip who won't let anyone else get a word in.

 

"No!!!!!   Dirk Benedict is not God.  Damn you straight to hell Ron Moore.  How dare you make me grateful to a SyFy executive."  That's me listening to the podcast detailing the original plan for the season 1 finale.  I watched the series with a little trepidation after that and then they explained how they idea they got the idea for what they did to Starbuck and that was the other shoe dropping.  Yes, you can know too much.

[selkie]

And just to keep the post on topic I didn't really care for Justified and that is usually my kind of show. Not sure why I didn't like it.

 

My issue with Justified was that the violence was a little too cartoon-like for me, and it distracted because there were a number of other interesting things about the show.

[ganesh]

RDM's podcasts were fine. He wasn't using the podcast to say, "This is what Starbuck meant, etc." From what I remember he actually said stuff like, "this episode didn't come out the way it was written, so this is how we tried to fix it, but there's only so much you can do with 40 minutes of show." Nothing wrong with that either. 

 

I also remember he said that the "roll the hard six" line, which I love, was adlibbed by EJO. I think he would say things too like, "so and so wrote this scene". That's all cool stuff. 

 

If you like talking about how you make the show, where you get your ideas, sure, use social media. 

[cynic]

My UO is I'm enjoying the Vampire Diaries right now. Admittedly, it likely has something to do with the fact that I've only recently started watching again after giving it up a few seasons ago, so some of the storylines that people are saying are rehashed seem new to me. Also, I'm enjoying Damon and Elena having a somewhat normal relationship. Their issues in the last few episodes seem to be rooted in the very realistic notion of what to do when your visions of the future don't match up and whether you should compromise who you are to be with someone. Plus, I'm curious about how they will deal with

Nina Dobrev's exit. And while that really should be the end of the show, I'd be totally okay watching next season if it focused on Damon and Bonnie's friendship or even putting them together.

As for social media/commentary, I don't like extra canon being revealed outside the show, but bts stuff, bloopers, or some analysis are nice to have available. One of my favorite commentary moments is a story about Bear McCreary's reaction to a shocking death on a show he was scoring. It was fun to see that he was just like us fans, because I had the exact same reaction.

Edited April 25, 2015 by cynic

[applecrisp]

Ooo, me too. I have a big 'ol crush on Moriarity.....well, Ben Stone I guess. My favorite ADA was Abbie but Casey was a close second. 

Would not say I had a crush.  But I really thought he was the moral center of the show the first years.  Less cynical and I think that is why he got out.  Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he screw up a lady's (Alison Janney) protection and outed her in testifying against the Russian mob?

[applecrisp]

Hodor!

 

I used to be intrigued by Jon Snow's character, but now I find myself more interested in Sam's story and his development into manhood.

I came here to say the same.  I still like Jon but Sam is a warm and good person.  A rarity on GoT.

[Moose135]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he screw up a lady's (Alison Janney) protection and outed her in testifying against the Russian mob?

 

You are correct.

[ribboninthesky1]

I'm not a shipper.  I'm perfectly fine with romantic relationships on TV (though I tend to prefer established couples), and if the combo of writing/actor chemistry is there, I'm for it.  I'm also not tied to the "soulmate/one true love" thing.  For example, when I watched Gilmore Girls all those years ago, I liked most of Lorelai's love interests. While I liked Luke, I'd have been perfectly fine if they never reconciled.

[bubbls]

Would not say I had a crush.  But I really thought he was the moral center of the show the first years.  Less cynical and I think that is why he got out.  Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he screw up a lady's (Alison Janney) protection and outed her in testifying against the Russian mob?

 

It's been too many years since I watched those old episodes for me to remember. I catch one once in awhile these days but that's about it. 

[UYI]

Betty White is the best, but it comes to the Golden Girls, my favorite always was--and always will be--Bea Arthur. I will admit to being 10 years old in 1999, when Maude was first shown in reruns on TV Land, and Maude Findlay instantly became my hero. Even today (unfortunately), there isn't a character quite like her. Maybe her being Maude influences me, but as much as I love Betty White, I am still a much bigger fan of Bea. And I still miss her, too. 

[ganesh]

Bea Arthur was a titan of comedy. 

 

 

I'm also not tied to the "soulmate/one true love" thing.

I shipped on one show. Farscape. I will argue up and down that 99.9% of show ships are because TPTBs ran out of ideas and didn't know what else to do. 

 

I'm highly doubtful that the soulmate concept actually exists irl and was just made up for tv. Not that people should just settle because "this is as good as I could do". Relationships take *work*. And it's hard work. Is it worth it? There's some good drama in that question. I've had a lot of relationships, but I never really felt like, "yes, I want to make this work." Which is also the problem on tv. Not everyone needs to be with someone or actually wants to. 

 

What's gets me is when the leads get together on a show, I feel like they're settling for one another, rather than genuinely want to make their romantic relationship work. I love the X Files, but Mulder and Scully getting together made me realize how pathetic they were. 

 

This is a separate topic: If you are compelled to post on an internet message board dedicated to television shows about how you fast forwarded through parts a particular show, but still will be commenting on the show, then you need to both stfu and gtfo. 

Edited April 26, 2015 by ganesh

[Minneapple]

I'm also not tied to the "soulmate/one true love" thing.

I hate that too. I hate the implication that a character is doomed to live a miserable loveless life if they don't wind up with a certain person.

[andromeda331]

Would not say I had a crush.  But I really thought he was the moral center of the show the first years.  Less cynical and I think that is why he got out.  Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he screw up a lady's (Alison Janney) protection and outed her in testifying against the Russian mob?

 

 

I don't know if its unpopular opinion or not but I remembered him blaming himself for her death. She didn't want to testify and he forced her into it. The part that always confused me was they seemed to think if she hadn't testified she'd still be alive. But even if she hadn't testified there was no way the Russian mob was going to leave her alone. She was still a liability. It was weird when her character would go on and on about how she'd be safe if she didn't testify when really she wouldn't be.  

[Ohwell]

This is a separate topic: If you are compelled to post on an internet message board dedicated to television shows about how you fast forwarded through parts a particular show, but still will be commenting on the show, then you need to both stfu and gtfo.

Ouch.  Was that necessary?  Can't we all just get along?

[ganesh]

It's the UO thread. This is the place for those kinds of topics. It's not right to call people out in an episode thread. I don't understand how one can participate in a discussion about a show when they've hadn't actually watched the show in its entirety. Especially the Big Shows. They're highly serialized now. It's not like fast forwarding through an interrogation scene in Law and Order, where the show is basically the same. You fast forward through Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Bates Motel, you're missing valuable information relevant to the plot. 

 

"I fast forwarded through the dinner scene because watching people eat is gross, but I don't like the brother character because he was mean to his sister, so I'm going to talk all about that." Well, maybe you didn't catch the brother character actually apologizing in that scene you couldn't be arsed to watch, so you're basically have no idea what's going on in the show, is my point. 

 

Between that and going online to see what the TPTBs have to say about the show, I mean, is it so hard to actually watch a show? What's the point then? 

Edited April 26, 2015 by ganesh

[applecrisp]

Ganesh, I understand.  I get upset on these threads when someone just watches the show to complain.  This show is a sitcom, so how realistic is it.  If you have problems with a show fine but must you always be so negative.  Maybe take a break from the thread and comments.  

[ganesh]

There's a difference between being critical and just complaining. On the opposite of just complaining, there's just supporting the show no matter its obvious flaw too. That's just as bad. I think the main character on Outlander isn't really that good of a person, but it's a compelling story and no one is telling me to shut up about it. 

 

I was that guy on the Leftovers. It was just so poorly executed that I couldn't figure out what the show was actually about. The show I was watching clearly wasn't what everyone else was watching, though I have yet to see my criticisms addressed. Because guess what? TPTBs would use social media to tell people how to watch the show. 

 

This year, I've been working on letting things go. So, I don't post there anymore. There's lots of places I don't. 

 

Part of the problem I think is that at the other place, there were so many constraints on how you could post content and the rules were so arbitrarily applied that any real discussion got lost in the process. It's actually way better here.