Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Cobalt Stargazer]

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 think you've brought this up before, ganesh, but since I resemble your remarks, I think I'll jump in. :-)

 

I don't think its okay for anyone to tell anyone else to shut up, but there are times when I want to. I've participated in fandom for a long time, and I'm still hanging on to umbrage taken from things that happened on a show that's been off the air for years. Fandom is nothing if not a vicious beast when its displeased, and given how emotionally attached I can become to a show or an actor, I can only imagine what it might be like for someone else.

 

OTOH, I do think even bitching has its place. I do it, if only to keep my blood pressure down. Venting spleen on the 'net is safer than venting it in traffic, where it might get you shot. I think the larger problem is people who are always looking for something to annoy and/or offend them, and TV is just an easy target. I guess I do that too, but more often than not my complaining has a purpose.

[Ohwell]

It's the "stfu and gtfo" part that was uncalled for. 

[Neurochick]

My UO is that if the show Forever hasn't been canceled, then it should be.  I hate shows where they have stupid female characters.  

 

The detective, Jo, meets a billionaire, the man wants to take her to Paris and she bails, because she's in wuv with Henry, who has NEVER said that he even likes her, has never taken her out or anything and is emotionally unavailable.  Look, I get up at 5am and have an hour commute to a job that's not terrible, but one I'm not in love with.  If some billionaire wanted to take me to Europe, I'd go for it.  Sorry, I'm human.  

[Enigma X]

It's the "stfu and gtfo" part that was uncalled for. 

I admit that I sometimes (very rarely) go on about how a show is not working for me. I try not to do that. Why? Because I freely admit that I get annoyed more so and fairly quickly when others do it (even if I agree). Therefore I am the one who does stfu and gtfo of many forums/groups on the internet, since I cannot dictate how someone posts on the internet and would not dare to try to tell someone how either. For me, that is the best way to handle it.

[ganesh]

I don't tell off people in episode threads. I roll my eyes and I ignore them. I come here instead because this has evolved into a thread to vent. This is a community, if virtual, and as such, a community has standards. Actually watching a television episode prior to commenting on its content is a fair standard.

 

At least if you're complaining all the time, you've actually watched the episode. 

 

I suppose I'd rather have the boards more broadly moderated like they are here and have one thread to complain in than the quasi police state at the other place. It's a what level can you accept issue. 

 

I just find the whole concept of "I fast forwarded through the scene" either patently false or just stupid. Why do you need to do it for one and feel the need to tell everyone for the other?

Edited April 26, 2015 by ganesh

[FurryFury]

People can and will critique shows. It actually serves to prove they care. Nothing wrong with that, it's not any worse than people gushing all over something that you personally consider awful. If they didn't care, they wouldn't write anything. Shutting people up or forcing for them to only write positive stuff is basically censoring them.

 

Also, to get the thread back on track: I don't like prestige Emmy-bait cable dramas. They are boring, slow-paced and very pretentious. They also feel very male-oriented. I like smart, well thought-out TV, but I'll never watch Breaking Bad or Mad Men. I want my likable leads (with flaws, of course, but still likable) and I don't watch TV to feel miserable.

Edited April 26, 2015 by FurryFury

[cynic]

I think 12 Monkeys on SyFy was a better show this year than most of the Emmy-bait, prestige dramas and I'll never understand why sci-fi/fantasy is considered less respectable than straight dramas. Just having fantastical elements in a show doesn't make it dumb.

On the dumb, popcorn tv end of the spectrum, I don't think Cisco makes everything better on the Flash. I actually find him annoying at times. Otoh, I ended up loving Mason Bridge, despite his jerkfaciness and wish I had gotten to see more of that character. At least he was trying to advance the plot and he treated Iris like a grown up, so course he had to go.

[ganesh]

People can and will critique shows.

 

It's inherently assumed here that the people in question have actually watched the show that they want to critique. My point is that if one is posting "I've fast forwarded through this scene and that but here's what I think anyway" doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. It's reasonable to expect people have actually watched the shows upon which they're critiquing, and it's a mystery to me why they would comment on something they haven't watched. 

[Anna Yolei]

I just find the whole concept of "I fast forwarded through the scene" either patently false or just stupid. Why do you need to do it for one and feel the need to tell everyone for the other?

The oone show I gave a pass on this was As the World Turns...by the end, every story existed as its own separate entity and characters that should have been interacting with one another would have no clue what was going on with their so called best friend/brother/cousin/whatever.

But for weekly TV? Not so much. Just about every TV show is serialized to some extent. If I need to FF more than half the show, I'm moving on to something else.

[callie lee 29]

I'll admit I get irritated by people who the only thing they seem to do is slam a show. There are seriously show threads I avoid here (and on TWOP) becasue for months I would never see one positive thing ever. Not even on mildly non-irritated comment. But at least they were watching! Why would you comment on something you haven't even watched, I don't get that. People do that? How do you have that much time? I mean I have a decent amount of free time on my hands, but that seems excessive!

 

My UO (?) is that while I don't hate watch, I do boredom watch. Right now I'm watching Family Guy. I do not like this show. I have never once laughed at anything on this show. I find it seriously offensive on more than a few levels. But it's on after the Simpsons and Brooklyn 9-1-1 and nothing else is so I watch it.

[ToxicUnicorn]

To combine the topics : what about people talking about shows they don't hate, but haven't really watched?

 

I shipped on one show. Farscape.

 

Does this show really become worth it?  I have tried many a time and I'm still only through episode 3.  It doesn't look like it's going to get better.  I see Muppets and I start to shut down.  But people I respect swear up and down that this is one of the most addicting shows ever.  So, I have this guilty feeling that, maybe I should try again because surely it will be good but I don't really see the appeal and certainly don't see a budding "ship".

 

I've read recaps on shows (over on TwoP) I've never watched, because I'm curious like that.  But I won't usually join in the conversation unless I"ve seen the show...except for this forum.  Which I think is great.

 

I do like the fact this place isn't a police state, though.  I genuinely appreciate this level of moderation.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Does this show [Farscape] really become worth it? 

 

YES!

 

It is a bit of an acquired taste, I suppose, but it is totally worth watching, IMO.

[ribboninthesky1]

But for weekly TV? Not so much. Just about every TV show is serialized to some extent. If I need to FF more than half the show, I'm moving on to something else.

 

Sums up for me as well.  That said...

 

My UO (?) is that while I don't hate watch, I do boredom watch. Right now I'm watching Family Guy. I do not like this show. I have never once laughed at anything on this show. I find it seriously offensive on more than a few levels. But it's on after the Simpsons and Brooklyn 9-1-1 and nothing else is so I watch it.

 

I have done this before - I used to watch The Good Wife after The Amazing Race. The difference is, I don't bother participating in discussions because a) I'm usually far behind the current season, or b) I'm not really invested in or paying attention to what's happening.

 

Like others, I have no inherent issues with critique or complaints because I love to read a well-written argument.  But I'mma need for you to know what actually happened as aired on the show.  Otherwise, what's stopping anyone from making things up to fit their perception?  

 

And to just emphasize, I'm not referring to ambiguous scenes.  I don't think TV is the "abstract" kind of entertainment/art, though I'm certain that TPTB like to pull that card when convenient.  It just doesn't work from a storytelling perspective, especially not long term. If everything is up for interpretation, then what am I as a viewer supposed to be getting out of your show? Reminds me of The Affair, and why I bailed on it very quickly.     

Edited April 27, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[DittyDotDot]

Does this show [Farscape] really become worth it?  I have tried many a time and I'm still only through episode 3.  It doesn't look like it's going to get better.  I see Muppets and I start to shut down.  But people I respect swear up and down that this is one of the most addicting shows ever.  So, I have this guilty feeling that, maybe I should try again because surely it will be good but I don't really see the appeal and certainly don't see a budding "ship".

 

Well, it's definitely a very unusual show and I both loved and was indifferent to it at times. It did take a few episodes for it to start growing on me, though. I wouldn't say it gets better exactly--all though production quality does improve by the end of the first season--but has some really great highs mixed in with the mediocre. I think viewing it as a product of it's time helps with the puppet issue, IMO.  

[ganesh]

Literally, and I mean this literally, not literally-figuratively, Farscape was the one show I literally would run home to watch. I was on the west coast and the network didn't have a *feed* yet, so the first season, maybe second was on at 5pm. Once they did get a feed, I would, literally, refuse to go out until I watched the show. 

 

The first batch of episodes are bumpy. Once you get to the episode where Chiana is introduced, they start firing on all cylinders. 

 

This is a show that took real risks. They pulled an episode in the early second season that no show would do now. By the end of the series run, I mean, where they ended up. 

 

And the one thing they really knew how to inject the humor in the right way. 

 

It's a scifi show where the alien was actually a human, and the other aliens were *aliens*. Boy, was Speilberg ever wrong!

 

Also, Claudia Black is a criminally underrated actor. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by ganesh

[The Crazed Spruce]

This thread is for discussing your opinions about television that may not be shared with the general audience.  It is not meant for debating the merits of a particular fandom, or for condemning other viewers for the manner in which they watch television.

 

Any further denigrating of your fellow posters, either here or in any forum on this board, will not be tolerated.

[Blergh]

OK, here's one: re Bruce Jenner's reveal, AFAIC, it is what it is and while I admit to some shock inasmuch as I couldn't imagined it way back when, I'm not surprised considering recent events. However; [here's the unpopular deal], I have to wonder what Bruce Jenner was thinking re choosing Diane Sawyer to be the one to help break the news. I could be wrong but my impression of her has always been that she's rather insincere and exploitive [not unlike Barbara Walters in those regards]. Sad to say, it's hard for me to imagine a current journalist who wouldn't use Bruce Jenner's revelations to feather their own nest  under the guise of supporting a greater cause.

[SmithW6079]

I have to wonder what Bruce Jenner was thinking re choosing Diane Sawyer to be the one to help break the news. I could be wrong but my impression of her has always been that she's rather insincere and exploitive [not unlike Barbara Walters in those regards]. Sad to say, it's hard for me to imagine a current journalist who wouldn't use Bruce Jenner's revelations to feather their own nest  under the guise of supporting a greater cause.

 

I agree. I've never considered Diane Sawyer a serious journalist, in much the same vein as Katie Couric. He probably picked her because she's the most sympathetic big name on the major networks, and there was no way a minor network or minor name was going to do that story. (Katie Couric is not even on TV anymore, is she? I see that she does stories for Yahoo! now.)

[proserpina65]

My UO is that if the show Forever hasn't been canceled, then it should be.  I hate shows where they have stupid female characters.  

 

The detective, Jo, meets a billionaire, the man wants to take her to Paris and she bails, because she's in wuv with Henry, who has NEVER said that he even likes her, has never taken her out or anything and is emotionally unavailable.  Look, I get up at 5am and have an hour commute to a job that's not terrible, but one I'm not in love with.  If some billionaire wanted to take me to Europe, I'd go for it.  Sorry, I'm human.  

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree with some of it, but the billionaire who wanted to take Jo to Paris was pushy and overbearing, and was clearly trying to move the relationship at a pace which Jo found uncomfortable.  So I don't blame her for bailing on the trip and the relationship.  Although I'd probably have waited until I'd at least gotten to Paris before telling him I had no interest in his "every single moment planned" itinerary for seeing the city.

[Neurochick]

I get your point, and don't necessarily disagree with some of it, but the billionaire who wanted to take Jo to Paris was pushy and overbearing, and was clearly trying to move the relationship at a pace which Jo found uncomfortable.  So I don't blame her for bailing on the trip and the relationship.  Although I'd probably have waited until I'd at least gotten to Paris before telling him I had no interest in his "every single moment planned" itinerary for seeing the city.

 

I didn't find the guy pushy at all.  One of my best friends is like that whenever I come to her city and I'm like, "Fine.  For a week I don't have to be the boss. YAY."

That's when I realized Jo was too stupid to breathe.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Neurochick

[topanga]

That's when I realized Jo was too stupid to breathe.

 

I don't think she's stupid, but she's written as a very passive character who allows things just to happen to happen to her.

 

The fact that she lets a Medical Examiner take the lead when interviewing potential suspects--and the fact that he's the one to solve crimes--makes me sigh and throw a shoe at the TV. But I still like the show. I hope there's a season 2, and if there is, I hope Jo is allowed to be the BAMF detective I know she can be.

[Sheenieb]

Gossip Girl UO: Serena was always my favorite, and I don't think Blake Lively is a terrible actress.

[manbearpig]

Gossip Girl UO: Serena was always my favorite, and I don't think Blake Lively is a terrible actress.

 

Same here. In fact, by season five Serena and Georgina were the only two characters I could even stand. At the time it was frustrating to see Serena so sidelined and beaten down, but I realised if the show had spent more time on her at that point I probably would have ended up hating her too. I mean, I still think it's insane that she ended up marrying Dan after he revealed he was Gossip Girl...but then again Blair ended up with Chuck, Georgina ended up with Chuck's uncle who tried to rape Lily, Lily ended up with William who gave her fake cancer, so insanity all around there, I guess.

[Sandman]

How's this for an unpopular opinion: Vampires don't have sex lives. I'm completely baffled by the vogue for vampires who have angsty romances with humans, vampires who have human soulmates (or human souls, for that matter), vampires who have half-human (or half-werewolf) magic babies. Vampires don't have sex. Vampires don't have bodily functions. Because they're not alive.

I feel like the whole idea of "undead creature preying on humans" has kind of been glossed over. I can't get into The Vampire Diaries or The Originals (which is a fairly hilarious name for the show, given how derivative it is) for this reason. Well, that and the fact that the acting -- at least from the episodes l've been able to watch -- is horrendous.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sandman

[proserpina65]

I didn't find the guy pushy at all.  One of my best friends is like that whenever I come to her city and I'm like, "Fine.  For a week I don't have to be the boss. YAY."

That's when I realized Jo was too stupid to breathe.

I thought he was extremely pushy, possibly even controlling, and would've given him the shove.  But maybe that's because I'm someone who doesn't enjoy having vacations planned out to the minute.  The time I spent just wandering around Paris is a particularly find memory.  But hey, chacon a son goute.

Edited April 28, 2015 by proserpina65

[Lady Calypso]

Another Gossip Girl UO I have is that Blair/Dan was the healthiest and most organic couple on that goddamn show. They started off as mortal enemies who couldn't stand being in the same room, but they slowly got to know each other, found things in common other than Serena, and they grew to be friends and then lovers. But then the show had to mess that all up in the last season, with stupid Chuck and stupid plot contrivances and I'm still mad at the show for that. They were the only reasons why I was still watching to the bitter end. I never even liked Dan/Serena together anyway, because I didn't find Serena to be that caring of Dan and she had much more chemistry with Carter Baizen and even Nate. And Dan deserved better than Serena at times. 

 

Also, I liked Eric and I'm still pissed they barely gave him anything to do. And....I don't find Ed Westwick hot in any sense. He's probably the least attractive one on that show, with Chace Crawford being 10x more attractive.  Also, I dislike how they ruined six years of building up Rufus/Lily just so Dan and Serena could be together. Mind you, I was never a fan of Lily in general, but they were the second best couple until they had to bring William back for no good reason. And last UO, I liked Nate the best with Vanessa. Yeah, I went there. Ok, granted I haven't seen the first two seasons since they aired, but I remember rooting for them hardcore and being pissed when they shipped Vanessa off and left Nate in a never-ending loop of stupid girlfriends. He was sorely underused and I wanted Chace Crawford to go find better pastures, so to speak. 

[Misslindsey]

 

Gossip Girl UO: Serena was always my favorite, and I don't think Blake Lively is a terrible actress.

She wasn't my favorite character, but I liked her and preferred her over Blair and the never-ending Chuck drama. I do not think Blake Lively was a terrible actress either.  

 

My Gossip Girl UO is that my favorite character was Jenny. My interest in the show after she left went way down. I have only seen bits and pieces of the last couple of seasons.

[Sheenieb]

 

Same here. In fact, by season five Serena and Georgina were the only two characters I could even stand. At the time it was frustrating to see Serena so sidelined and beaten down, but I realised if the show had spent more time on her at that point I probably would have ended up hating her too. I mean, I still think it's insane that she ended up marrying Dan after he revealed he was Gossip Girl...but then again Blair ended up with Chuck, Georgina ended up with Chuck's uncle who tried to rape Lily, Lily ended up with William who gave her fake cancer, so insanity all around there, I guess.

I was so annoyed at how the show rarely gave her a chance to be serious.  My hope for her was that she discovered Lily's photography past, and pick up where her mother left off.  I didn't bother watching the final season, but I watched the finale. It still makes no sense that Dan was Gossip Girl.

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't think she's stupid, but she's written as a very passive character who allows things just to happen to happen to her.

 

The fact that she lets a Medical Examiner take the lead when interviewing potential suspects--and the fact that he's the one to solve crimes--makes me sigh and throw a shoe at the TV. But I still like the show. I hope there's a season 2, and if there is, I hope Jo is allowed to be the BAMF detective I know she can be.

 

I've seen only the pilot of this show, so question: if that's how she's written in season one, have there been signs that she'll be written as more assertive in season 2? I ask because it has been my experience that characters tend to be well-written and then decline due to plot contrivance, not the other way around.

 

On a somewhat separate note, I'm perfectly fine with female characters who aren't trained fighters and/or run from a fight.  To me, there's more to being bad-ass than violence. Sometimes, knowing when to fold is a marker of wisdom.    

Edited April 28, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[SmithW6079]

How's this for an unpopular opinion: Vampires don't have sex lives. I'm completely baffled by the vogue for vampires who have angsty romances with human, vampires who have human soulmates (or human souls, for that matter), vampires who have half-human (or half-werewolf) magic babies. Vampires don't have sex. Vampires don't have bodily functions. Because they're not alive.

I feel like the whole idea of "undead creature preying on humans" has kind of been glossed over. I can't get into The Vampire Diaries or The Originals (which is a fairly hilarious name for the show, given how derivative it is) for this reason. Well, that and the fact that the acting -- at least from the episodes l've been able to watch -- is horrendous.

Yeah, I always did wonder how male vampires got erections, what with the no blood flowing through their veins kind of thing. And I agree, the fact that vampires are "undead creature preying on humans" has definitely been ignored in favor of "sexy, tortured souls looking for true love." 

[kassygreene]

The only "correctly" imagined undead (for fictional values of undead, there being no such creature in non-fiction) character I've ever seen (and I go out of my way to NOT watch such shows; this zombie fad baffles me) is Owen Harper on Torchwood.  He dies, he's brought back so everyone can say good-bye (how selfish is that?), and then the Glove Of Very Brief Suspension Of Death fails to stop working... 

 

Anyway, Owen couldn't eat, drink, or shit; he couldn't physically feel anything; he couldn't have sex (or an erection); every injury remained unhealed; and while the character finally came to a sort of peace with it (Burn Gorham killed this role), in the end he died in a nuclear reactor when the room he was in filled with the whatzzit, destroying everything inside it but containing the radiation so that the rest of Cardiff was safe...  This is apparently not a popular view of the undead, because I am not aware any similar take on it...

 

What truly creeped me out was Owen's "death" - the writers found a way to destroy his body, but did not address if that really killed him, or if his radioactive vaporized soul was still hanging around, still conscious.  Crikey.

Edited April 28, 2015 by kassygreene

[truthaboutluv]

I guess my unpopular opinion with regards to vampires is that they don't exist so I'm pretty much fine with whatever spin any writer wants to put on them. I don't take any of the lore in any show/book/movie seriously because it's all pretty much fiction.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

How's this for an unpopular opinion: Vampires don't have sex lives. I'm completely baffled by the vogue for vampires who have angsty romances with human, vampires who have human soulmates (or human souls, for that matter), vampires who have half-human (or half-werewolf) magic babies. Vampires don't have sex. Vampires don't have bodily functions. Because they're not alive.

 

To add to that, I find it funny how a fifty year old proclaiming his (or in much rarer cases her) love for a teenager is considered pathetic and creepy, while say a two hundred year old vampire doing the same is the height of romance. Sure, it helps that the average TV vampire has the mentality of (emotionally stunted) teenager himself, but still... Frankly, the physiological challenges that sex with vampires should logically pose, bother me much less than the profound silliness of the two-hundred year old guy getting all emotional when taking his girlfriend to her high school prom.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[Sandman]

Yeah, I find the zombie craze even more befuddling/tiresome/icky than the vampire thing. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though, since there is so much "tortured teenage soul" angst floating around the medium, from the 200-year-old vampires to your garden-variety 38-year-old surgeon. They're all emotionally stunted, no matter their calendar age.

[Chaos Theory]

To add to that, I find it funny how a fifty year old proclaiming his (or in much rarer cases her) love for a teenager is considered pathetic and creepy, while say a two hundred year old vampire doing the same is the height of romance. Sure, it helps that the average TV vampire has the mentality of (emotionally stunted) teenager himself, but still... Frankly, the physiological challenges that sex with vampires should logically pose, bother me much less than the profound silliness of the two-hundred year old guy getting all emotional when taking his girlfriend to her high school prom.

Vampire romance at least for me was a teenage fantasy that ran its course once Buffy the Vampie Slayer did. Then again I always preferred Buffy/Angeles to Buffy/Angel and definitely Buffy/Spike. I still tend to like vampire stories it's a throwback to my teenage years. The romances got uhhhhh old.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[festivus]

 

 

Does this show really become worth it?  I have tried many a time and I'm still only through episode 3.

 

 

 

I know there have already been a few but I just had to reply to this. I'd never watched Farscape until last summer. It was slow going at first but it really picks up about halfway through the first season and I thought it was just nonstop awesome after that. You'll eventually forget that you're watching muppets. To tie this into an UO, I agree with the person upthread that said that sci fi shows don't get the respect and awards they deserve for the acting. The acting of Claudia Black and Ben Browder was some of the best I've seen. That show is now in my top 5 favorites of all time and John Crichton is my fave character ever.

[Love]

I still like Jon but Sam is a warm and good person.  A rarity on GoT.

 

He may be a good person but I just find Sam, and by association Gilly & the baby, so boring.  If I didn't watch live every week, FF material for sure.  Sam seems to have only one facial expression and I find the actor's way of speaking so slow and dragged out.  I can't muster up any interest.

[Gudzilla]

 

The romances got uhhhhh old.

I find this to be true of a lot of non vampire shows as well.

[Mulva]

Yeah, I always did wonder how male vampires got erections, what with the no blood flowing through their veins kind of thing.

Rigor mortis?

Anyway, my UO for the Gilmore Girls are:

I like Christopher a lot more than Luke - at least Chris is pleasant.

I like Rory's transformation from drab, mousy bookworm into a stylish, sociable girl.

Logan was the best boyfriend Rory had.

Jess was a sullen little punk with no redeeming features that I could see.

I don't hate April.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

To add to that, I find it funny how a fifty year old proclaiming his (or in much rarer cases her) love for a teenager is considered pathetic and creepy, while say a two hundred year old vampire doing the same is the height of romance. Sure, it helps that the average TV vampire has the mentality of (emotionally stunted) teenager himself, but still... Frankly, the physiological challenges that sex with vampires should logically pose, bother me much less than the profound silliness of the two-hundred year old guy getting all emotional when taking his girlfriend to her high school prom.

 

I find it even more mind-boggling that an outside party who doesn't find dating the undead the height of romance is somehow more flawed than someone who does.

[ToxicUnicorn]

No one gets a pass from me for this, but I have fond memories of Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica podcasts.

 

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.

 

I watched a New Release documentary on Netflix last night called, "Showrunners".  Despite the fact that the first seconds of film had no sound - (I hate that.  Makes me worry about my volume control unnecessarily instead of letting me relax and settle into something), the show was enjoyable.  Featuring a good lineup of interviews with recent showrunners who talk about concept, the writers' room, back and forth with the networks, and the stress of the job.

 

I think the vast majority of the shows discussed were finished.  For those of you who like to watch that kind of thing.  :)

[DittyDotDot]

I watched a New Release documentary on Netflix last night called, "Showrunners".  Despite the fact that the first seconds of film had no sound - (I hate that.  Makes me worry about my volume control unnecessarily instead of letting me relax and settle into something), the show was enjoyable.  Featuring a good lineup of interviews with recent showrunners who talk about concept, the writers' room, back and forth with the networks, and the stress of the job.

 

I think the vast majority of the shows discussed were finished.  For those of you who like to watch that kind of thing.  :)

 

I recently watched that too! It was interesting and an interesting mix of people from different genre and network/cable shows.

[ByTor]

I guess my unpopular opinion with regards to vampires is that they don't exist so I'm pretty much fine with whatever spin any writer wants to put on them.

I couldn't agree more.  My one caveat, however, is that a show remains consistent with its lore

[GHScorpiosRule]

I guess my unpopular opinion with regards to vampires is that they don't exist so I'm pretty much fine with whatever spin any writer wants to put on them. I don't take any of the lore in any show/book/movie seriously because it's all pretty much fiction.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more.  My one caveat, however, is that a show remains consistent with its lore

 

 

The weird thing with me is, that I really don't like watching shows or movies about vampires, lycans, etc., yet I have no problem getting into them when reading paranormal romances. Sue me.

[amensisterfriend]

While I liked Luke, I'd have been perfectly fine if they never reconciled.

 

I can totally out-unpopular that ;) I can't stand Luke. I liked him initially when he and Lorelai were friends and before he became quite so dopey, boorish and angry. But I outright hated Luke/Lorelai as a couple---I found them depressingly incompatible, desperately lacking in chemistry and just generally miserable more often than not.And now on rewatch I just dislike Luke in general---I find him a dull, sullen, bitter, depressing character who's incapable of communicating or controlling his borderline scary temper like an adult. On an equally unpopular and pathetically shallow note, I don't find him remotely attractive. I;m baffled by how often he's still held up as some sort of romantic ideal by my fellow Gilmore Girls fans! (And this isn't a 'Luke vs Lorelai' thing---I find her insufferable more often than not as well!) 

 

 

 

I like Christopher a lot more than Luke - at least Chris is pleasant.

 

Table for two, please! It was clear from the beginning that Luke was the predetermined 'end game', but unfortunately Lorelai just seemed so much happier around Chris IMO. They had far more connection, chemistry and compatibility IMO.

 

Then again, TV has taught me that never 'getting' each other, proving incapable of getting along for more than a few minutes at a time, constantly angering each other and having absolutely nothing in common is true "chemistry" and a sign that the two people are soulmates, so clearly I need to get with the program ;) 

 

To make this even more unpopular: I think the degree to which Chris was truly a neglectful "deadbeat dad" is grossly exaggerated among most fans. Having seen the show more times than I can count, they were really inconsistent in how they depicted his level of parental involvement, declaring that Chris never missed his weekly call in one episode and then casually remarking that they hadn't talked to him for months in the next episode. And it was often implied and even stated that Lorelai *wanted* to raise Rory completely on her own and even resisted some of Chris' attempts to be a bigger part of their lives. No one's claiming Christopher is a father of the year candidate, but I think his awfulness is often exaggerated. I've known true deadbeat dads who offer literally zero emotional and financial support, and Christopher just wasn't in that category.

 

And, yes, he would be a million times more enjoyable and pleasant to spend time with than the relentlessly negative, angry, enthusiasm-squashing Luke :)

Edited April 29, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[mishy]

Table for two, please!

*drags over chair*. Table for three! I hate Luke as a romantic partner for Lorelai. I liked Chris from the second he rode his motorcycle into town. I don't think he's some paragon of virtue and he was an inattentive dad to Rory a lot of the time. But he was a better romantic partner to Lorelai to me. Luke was a mean rude man.

I think the degree to which Chris was truly a neglectful "deadbeat dad" is grossly exaggerated among most fans.

Agree. I stopped posting in the old Gilmore Girls thread on TWoP because you got shouted down a lot. But i agree with your statement.

Edited April 29, 2015 by mishy

[Janet Snakehole]

I like it when reality shows break the fourth wall.

It at least acknowledges that the show is not actually reality.

[theredhead77]

To combine the topics : what about people talking about shows they don't hate, but haven't really watched?

 

 

Does this show [Farscape] really become worth it?  I have tried many a time and I'm still only through episode 3.  It doesn't look like it's going to get better.  I see Muppets and I start to shut down. 

To parrot the rest of everyone YES! It really does take about 6 episodes to get going. And those Muppets... let's just say lock your doors so the onion ninjas don't sneak in and make sure you are up to date on your teh feels vaccinations.

[braziliangirl]

 

Gossip Girl UO: Serena was always my favorite, and I don't think Blake Lively is a terrible actress.

 Yey! Me too! My UO is that I wanted her to end up with Nate or with Carter Baizen. Or maybe living with Blair, both of them single and conquering the world.

[Shannon L.]

Now that we're halfway through Season 3 of Arrow, I've started checking out the episode threads and there's such hate for the show.  I can understand the problems with inexplicable character changes, but my UO is that I'm still really enjoying it.