Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Minneapple]

 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.

I would have loved to have seen Serena wind up with Nate or Carter. I actually loved Serena/Carter.

 

And I really liked Blair/Dan, but boy did the writers do a great job ruining that one. Chuck/Blair was horrifying.

 

As for Arrow, I have found that my enjoyment of the show rises when I stop reading the forum.

[magdalene]

Outlander, the TV series has been a huge disappointment for me.   After watching the latest episode and just now reading spoilers for the rest of the season because some friends thought  I would hate future plot lines I am giving up on this homophobic torture porn.  I have watched a lot of violent programming over the years - hello Spartacus - but I haven't been this disgusted in a long time. I wish I could scrub out my brain.

[memememe76]

I actually think Arrow has had a fantastic season so far. It's my favourite season by far. I like the team of Thea, Felicity, Diggle, Laurel, Sara and Nyssa. I mean, look at how many women I listed. I think it's great!

[Chaos Theory]

I actually think Arrow has had a fantastic season so far. It's my favourite season by far. I like the team of Thea, Felicity, Diggle, Laurel, Sara and Nyssa. I mean, look at how many women I listed. I think it's great!

My UO for Arrow is I like Laurel and have since they turned her into a snaky alcoholic. Since then she's been fun. Actually the only person I don't like on the show is Oliver Queen.

[ByTor]

Here's a pretty UO...I genuinely like Under the Dome and am very much looking forward to the new season (June 25 yay!!)

[Shannon L.]

 

My UO for Arrow is I like Laurel and have since they turned her into a snaky alcoholic. Since then she's been fun. Actually the only person I don't like on the show is Oliver Queen.

I like all of them in varying degrees. While Laurel isn't my favorite, I don't have the level of hate for her that others do. 

[ribboninthesky1]

My UO for Arrow is I like Laurel and have since they turned her into a snaky alcoholic. Since then she's been fun. Actually the only person I don't like on the show is Oliver Queen.

 

Heh, this reminds of how much I dislike Barry on The Flash (at least when I watched, I've missed the last several episodes). Didn't care for Oliver on Arrow, either, but at least the show didn't pretend he was a "good guy."        

[DkNNy79]

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!

Yes!  The Little Couple thread comes to mind.  I don't hate watch and I confess, it puzzles me when people do.  If I can't stand a show or the people on the show I won't watch because I'm not going to support them.

 

I have certain actors/actresses that I don't like (some of it is an irrational dislike) and I will not see a show or movie that they are in, because I refuse to support them.  To me its the same premise.

Edited May 1, 2015 by DkNNy79

[DittyDotDot]

Heh, this reminds of how much I dislike Barry on The Flash (at least when I watched, I've missed the last several episodes). Didn't care for Oliver on Arrow, either, but at least the show didn't pretend he was a "good guy."        

 

I'll heh you one more...I pretty much dislike Clark Kent on Smallville too. What is it with superhero shows that does this to me? Aren't I suppose to like and root for the hero? Is it just because I don't like to do what is expected of me?

[Chaos Theory]

I'll heh you one more...I pretty much dislike Clark Kent on Smallville too. What is it with superhero shows that does this to me? Aren't I suppose to like and root for the hero? Is it just because I don't like to do what is expected of me?

I think the problem with "hero" shows especially secret identity hero shows is that the hero has to be a lying liar who lies. Half the time if he just told the truth half his problems would go away. I mean heck. That was the major issue between Clark and Lex on Smallvile. If Clark had told the dude the truth day one......

[ribboninthesky1]

What baffles me is the vitriol that (some of the, usually love interest) female characters get.  I'm always thinking, "But the dude who lies, sometimes manipulates, can be passive-aggressive, often emotionally stunted, commonly careless and reckless, borderline sociopathic, and at times outright DUMB is some kind of prize? Really?" *blinking in confusion*

 

But then, I don't think the genre translates to live-action TV at all.  I can watch an animated series and not be constantly annoyed at the "protagonist(s)." 

[amensisterfriend]

I pretty much dislike Clark Kent on Smallville too.

 

I don't outright dislike Clark like I did Arrow's Oliver, but only because Clark bores me too much to inspire anything other than complete and utter indifference. But I definitely share the UO re thinking Clark and Oliver were the worst characters on their own shows. 

 

I was thinking of the few of us who prefer Gilmore Girls' Christopher to Luke and realized I nearly always like the far less 'popular' male characters/male love interests. I preferred Jack to Sawyer on LOST, Sam to Dean on Supernatural, and Pretty Much Anyone Who's Not Logan to Logan on Veronica Mars. I swear that it's not out of any sort of desire to be contrary...I just have odd taste :) When I rewatch/reread Pride and Prejudice, I sometimes find myself secretly thinking about how much more pleasant it would be to be married to Bingley over Darcy! 

Edited May 1, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[joelene]

Outlander, [---] I am giving up on this homophobic torture porn.

This made me very curious! I only watched the first episode but I've been thinking about a season one binge, and people are saying how feminist it is. What about it is homophobic torture porn? Because that I have no interest in.

[DittyDotDot]

This made me very curious! I only watched the first episode but I've been thinking about a season one binge, and people are saying how feminist it is. What about it is homophobic torture porn? Because that I have no interest in.

 

I am not Magdalene, but felt the need to stick my nose in here anyway.

 

I've only watched the first eight episodes and didn't find it at all homophobic. There are a couple scenes of torture, but I didn't get the sense it was for shock value or just because they could--they are rather important to the narrative and very few as of episode eight. However, I spoiled myself and do know of a couple scenes coming up from the books that are very controversial. I'd say it all depends on your own standards and limits.

 

Personally, I'm on the fence about the show; I just don't think it's particularly well-written. However, the scenery is gorgeous, the acting it pretty damn good and I love a Bear McCready score, so I haven't totally given up on it yet.

Edited May 3, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[magdalene]

This made me very curious! I only watched the first episode but I've been thinking about a season one binge, and people are saying how feminist it is. What about it is homophobic torture porn? Because that I have no interest in.

joelene, I can't get into the homophobic part too much because what really set my hackles up concerns some disturbing future plot I was told about to caution me. As to the torture porn - almost every episode there has been torture, brutality, threat of rape, mixed with full-frontal  female and full frontal male nudity in last weeks episode.

The show strikes me as homophobic because there are only negative portrayals of homosexuality. One character is such an offensive stereotype and the other character, the villain, is a brutal sadist who is clearly coded gay.

 

Couple this with that I find the show to be kind of boring in parts and has a heroine that is getting close to Mary Sue territory I think OUTLANDER is not for me. I was originally going to read the books after I finished the first season but I am so turned off I won't now.

[joelene]

Thanks for clarifying, magdalene!

[magdalene]

Thanks for clarifying, magdalene!

You are welcome, joelene.

[galax-arena]

I am sick of all the media coverage over the new royal baby. Two reasons why:

 

1) I'm anti-monarchy and loathe our fascination with modern-day royals in general.

2) I've never been the type to squee over babies or children unless I have a personal connection to them; I love my baby niece, but I couldn't give a rat's ass about celebrity spawn. I'm a frequent poster at the 19 Kids and Counting sub-forum, and to me, the family's constant pregnancies are the least interesting thing about them. I can't get into all the speculation over baby names and whether so-and-so is having twins. For the record, though, I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys the speculation! That's what the scroll function is for on my mouse. :) 

[ganesh]

I'm mystified how the monarchies haven't been dissolved by now.

[merylinkid]

Because if you don't have monarchies  you get the Kardashians.   At least monarchies are expected to behave with some class and generally keep their clothes on in public.

[galax-arena]

At least monarchies are expected to behave with some class and generally keep their clothes on in public.

But at least the Kardashians aren't held up as a symbol of being inherently better than the rest of us simply by virtue of their birth. Also, someone needs to let Prince Philip know about that whole "behaving with class" thing. 

 

I'm not naive enough to assume that getting rid of the monarchy would miraculously get rid of classism. But it does puzzle me why so many Americans in particular wholeheartedly embrace one of the most egregious symbols/relics of the class system while at the same time trumpeting the purported American values of !!bootstraps!! and social mobility, all the while sneering at the UK with its class issues (like we have none of our own). And it's not just the UK royals, I know; it's like we decided that if we can't have our own literal monarchy, we'll create our figurative one with the Kennedys. (Although I think the fascination with the Kennedys has died down a lot.) 

 

ETA: Okay, okay, I'll admit to some interest in some dynastic families, but more in the sense of wondering how fucked up they are as opposed to associating them with class or good breeding. Like when I found out that Anderson Cooper was a Vanderbilt, I figured he must have some stories to tell, lmao.

Edited May 4, 2015 by galax-arena

[ribboninthesky1]

I'm not naive enough to assume that getting rid of the monarchy would miraculously get rid of classism. But it does puzzle me why so many Americans in particular wholeheartedly embrace one of the most egregious symbols/relics of the class system while at the same time trumpeting the purported American values of !!bootstraps!! and social mobility, all the while sneering at the UK with its class issues (like we have none of our own).

 

Because it's all largely bullshit, and Americans are as class-obsessed as Brits?  To me, class-ism in the US is like racism in Europe - it's there, hiding in plain sight, while the media and entertainment spin the narrative of "it's not a problem here." 

Edited May 4, 2015 by ribboninthesky1

[proserpina65]

Because it's all largely bullshit, and Americans are as class-obsessed as Brits?  To me, class-ism in the US is like racism in Europe - it's there, hiding in plain sight, while the media and entertainment spin the narrative of "it's not a problem here." 

In America, our class system is more money-based, but otherwise, yeah, for the most part Americans are still class-obsessed.

But at least the Kardashians aren't held up as a symbol of being inherently better than the rest of us simply by virtue of their birth.

 

No, they're held up as being somehow better than the rest of us by virtue of having an undogly amount of money, for doing absolutely nothing of worth.  By the media, at least.

[Neurochick]

You know what I think people like about the monarchy?  It's not really the people, it's the pageantry, the ritual, the ceremony, like watching a well oiled machine.  There's nothing in the US like it,except the inauguration of the president.  

Edited May 4, 2015 by Neurochick

[truthaboutluv]

I'm a frequent poster at the 19 Kids and Counting sub-forum, and to me, the family's constant pregnancies are the least interesting thing about them.

 

 

Serious question as I never watch the show and am only aware of them thanks to People bombarding me with it on my twitter timeline, but what else is there to them. Because seems to me all I ever read about them is getting married barely out of teens and pushing out babies. 

[Rick Kitchen]

Serious question as I never watch the show and am only aware of them thanks to People bombarding me with it on my twitter timeline, but what else is there to them. Because seems to me all I ever read about them is getting married barely out of teens and pushing out babies. 

 

Their right wing politics.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Their right wing politics.

 

And the fact that those kids are a bunch of brainwashed Stepford drones who think women exist solely to be 100% subservient to men, negate any ambition or sense of self, and be barefoot and pregnant until they're too old to do it anymore (menopause cannot come soon enough for Michelle Duggar). It frightens me the sway these freaks still have over the media, and that we celebrate an insular bunch of rednecks who send a poisonous message to young girls everywhere. We have no one to blame but ourselves, and all we can do is that they fade into obscurity where they belong.

[SmithW6079]

There are seriously show threads I avoid here (and on TWOP) because for months I would never see one positive thing ever.

I'm giving up the "Grimm" forum because the unrelenting Juliette hate is ruining my enjoyment of the show. Edited May 5, 2015 by SmithW6079

[ShellSeeker]

The current season of Orphan Black really isn't doing it for me.

[rue721]

I'll heh you one more...I pretty much dislike Clark Kent on Smallville too. What is it with superhero shows that does this to me? Aren't I suppose to like and root for the hero? Is it just because I don't like to do what is expected of me?

 

I feel like superhero shows have to walk a really thin line between making the superhero look strong/dangerous while at the same time making him look like such a good person that you KNOW he'd only attack the bad guys and don't find him terrifying.

 

The thing with Smallville is that Clark started seeming (imo) really selfish and cold-hearted after a point. His obsession with keeping his Secret was a big part of that. I understood why he was afraid, but considering that everyone around him was in constant, terrifying danger, his refusal to take even the relatively small risk of trusting his closest friends with the truth made him look cowardly imo. "Cowardly" isn't a good look for a superhero! Especially since his supposed bff/archenemy, Lex, wasn't cowardly even after he'd already turned "bad."

 

But for me, the real turning point was when Clark just randomly (imo) turned against Lex -- even though the show was still doing episodes about Lex fantasizing that they'd be friends again and asking Clark outright if they could try being friends again. (I'm talking about S5). I mean, Lex was doing plenty of shitty things by that point in the series (I actually really liked/enjoyed him at that point!), but the stuff that Clark had issues with weren't those shitty things -- one big complaint of Clark's about Lex at that time was that Lana wanted to date him. And the show's big LEX IS EVOL! thing was that he was manipulative, secretive, and a liar. But so was Clark? Idk, it seemed like the harder the show tried to show that Lex was a bad guy, the worse Clark looked in comparison somehow.

[DittyDotDot]

I feel like superhero shows have to walk a really thin line between making the superhero look strong/dangerous while at the same time making him look like such a good person that you KNOW he'd only attack the bad guys and don't find him terrifying.

 

The thing with Smallville is that Clark started seeming (imo) really selfish and cold-hearted after a point. His obsession with keeping his Secret was a big part of that. I understood why he was afraid, but considering that everyone around him was in constant, terrifying danger, his refusal to take even the relatively small risk of trusting his closest friends with the truth made him look cowardly imo. "Cowardly" isn't a good look for a superhero! Especially since his supposed bff/archenemy, Lex, wasn't cowardly even after he'd already turned "bad."

 

But for me, the real turning point was when Clark just randomly (imo) turned against Lex -- even though the show was still doing episodes about Lex fantasizing that they'd be friends again and asking Clark outright if they could try being friends again. (I'm talking about S5). I mean, Lex was doing plenty of shitty things by that point in the series (I actually really liked/enjoyed him at that point!), but the stuff that Clark had issues with weren't those shitty things -- one big complaint of Clark's about Lex at that time was that Lana wanted to date him. And the show's big LEX IS EVOL! thing was that he was manipulative, secretive, and a liar. But so was Clark? Idk, it seemed like the harder the show tried to show that Lex was a bad guy, the worse Clark looked in comparison somehow.

 

I don't know maybe my statement of dislike wasn't really what I meant. What I think I meant was, as a character, I find Clark uninteresting. There's no mystery to Clark Kent and no real conflict surrounding him and, for the most part, he and his life is rather sickeningly perfect. His biggest problem in life is that he has a secret and keeping that secret means he doesn't get the girl he wants. I just find his constant whining about how his life sucks to be...well, whiney.

 

Lex, on the other hand, also has a seemingly perfect life but there's real conflict for him with his father and lots to be learned about him especially in regards to his obsession with Clark and the meteor shower. And, Lex is more proactive in trying to solve his mysteries rather than moping around about how he's at the mercy of his big stupid destiny.

 

I think that might be the problem for me with most of these "heroes": for me, they come off as whiney in the guise of depth-of-character and I generally find them to be the least interesting characters on their own shows. I guess I don't actively dislike any of them, but I don't think I like them all that much either.

[GHScorpiosRule]

See, Clark was absolutely charming and endearing in Smallville's first season. It also didn't hurt this viewer/fan, that Tom Welling was, and still is gorgeous and pretty and those eyes of his...ahem.

 

But yes, even I got frustrated with him as the seasons went by, especially with his Lana obsession. BUT, as far as keeping his secret? It didn't bode well for his best friend, Pete Ross--who Clark did tell, because Pete caught him 'stealing' back the ship Clark had been in when he landed on Earth, I think it was.  And then Pete was nabbed by bad guys, who beat and tortured him to find out who Clark was.  After that, Pete left the show, though I think that had more to do with the actor's real life issues.  But my point is, sometimes it's just better to keep that secret. And that I know is very unpopular, going by the many comments I've read in the various super hero shows that are now out there.

[DittyDotDot]

Oh, I agree it's smart to keep that secret unless, of course, you enjoy the entire village showing up at your door with pitchforks. I don't have a problem with Clark keeping his secret, but I kinda wish he's just shut up about it, though.

[amensisterfriend]

I found Clark's father a vastly more interesting character than Clark...then again, I found most characters a whole lot more interesting than Clark :) 

 

I do think the later seasons of that show are much better than they're popularly given credit for---and I hold the UO of actually preferring them to the earlier seasons overall by a pretty wide margin. 

 

Come to think of it, I also hold the UO of loving the generally maligned later seasons of LOST more than the beginning ones. Maybe these UOs are related to how I binged watched those shows all at once...? 

 

Another one: I'm generally a big fan of geeeky/nerdy characters, but I literally can't even get through five minutes of the Big Bang Theory. And that has to be the loudest, most aggravatingly frequent laugh track ever! 

[galax-arena]

Serious question as I never watch the show and am only aware of them thanks to People bombarding me with it on my twitter timeline, but what else is there to them. Because seems to me all I ever read about them is getting married barely out of teens and pushing out babies.

The whole Quiverfull lifestyle. I'm fascinated with extreme Christian fundamentalism. I actually haven't watched 19 Kids in several years because I couldn't stomach them - plus, 19 Kids is what helped Josh get a job with the hate group FRC - but I still keep up with their antics via magazine articles and twitter. 

[DittyDotDot]

Another one: I'm generally a big fan of geeeky/nerdy characters, but I literally can't even get through five minutes of the Big Bang Theory. And that has to be the loudest, most aggravatingly frequent laugh track ever! 

 

The Big Bang Theory is a weird one for me. I'm not a loyal viewer, and mostly dislike shows with laugh tracks, but I started seeing it here and there in syndication on a local station. At first I just didn't understand all the love for the show and thought it was terrible, but it did grow on me. I now find I mostly, somewhat, sort of, almost kinda like it. ;)

[ByTor]

I finished up Sons of Anarchy now that it is on Netflix.  I don't know if this is unpopular with the fandom, but I'm sure this is unpopular with the likes of Sutter...I have ZERO idea why Jax is constantly told he is a "good man; " further, it baffles that he was ever considered a protagonist.  In the beginning, all he had going for him was that he was better than Clay, and that's really no great accomplishment.

 

The thing is, though, what I find so fascinating about SoA is that this was a show where I didn't find any of the lead characters to be rootable, yet they engaged me enough to make me want to watch.

[Chaos Theory]

I finished up Sons of Anarchy now that it is on Netflix. I don't know if this is unpopular with the fandom, but I'm sure this is unpopular with the likes of Sutter...I have ZERO idea why Jax is constantly told he is a "good man; " further, it baffles that he was ever considered a protagonist. In the beginning, all he had going for him was that he was better than Clay, and that's really no great accomplishment.

The thing is, though, what I find so fascinating about SoA is that this was a show where I didn't find any of the lead characters to be rootable, yet they engaged me enough to make me want to watch.

It's not exactly an unpopular opinion. I think the major storyline for the show was the battle over Jax's soul between Gemma and Tara. That was the ultimate storyline in the end; and why I think people called Jax "a good man" because of he followed Tara he could be. Edited May 5, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[ByTor]

 why I think people called Jax "a good man" because of he followed Tara he could be.

Yes, but people weren't saying "deep down you're a good man", or "you could have been a good man," but "you are a good man"...or even worse "you're a good dad." If he were a good dad he would have gotten those kids out of dodge ASAP.  Opinions vary, but this is the core of what angered me at how Jax was written.

[ribboninthesky1]

See, Clark was absolutely charming and endearing in Smallville's first season. It also didn't hurt this viewer/fan, that Tom Welling was, and still is gorgeous and pretty and those eyes of his...ahem.

 

But yes, even I got frustrated with him as the seasons went by, especially with his Lana obsession. BUT, as far as keeping his secret? It didn't bode well for his best friend, Pete Ross--who Clark did tell, because Pete caught him 'stealing' back the ship Clark had been in when he landed on Earth, I think it was.  And then Pete was nabbed by bad guys, who beat and tortured him to find out who Clark was.  After that, Pete left the show, though I think that had more to do with the actor's real life issues.  But my point is, sometimes it's just better to keep that secret. And that I know is very unpopular, going by the many comments I've read in the various super hero shows that are now out there.

 

Interestingly enough, Tom Welling did absolutely nothing for me on Smallville.  But now that he has a bit of salt and pepper in his hair? Yes, please.

 

Anyway, regarding the secret!identity, your comments made me think.  There's certainly a case for not telling people you're a vigilante with supernatural abilities.  My problem is the angst (and to Ditty Dot's point, whininess) it creates.  I can appreciate dramatic conflict, but angsty characters annoy me immensely.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Heh. Well, we were bound to disagree on some things, ribboninthesky. I'm just glad we agree on the more superior stuff--like the DCAU animated universe!

 

And yes, shallow of me, but it was Welling's pretty that kept me until the bitter, bitter end of Smallville.

Edited May 5, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[amensisterfriend]

Some more Lost UOs (aside from the one above re. actually preferring the widely disliked later seasons to the earlier ones and absolutely loving the finale!):

 

1) Somehow I could never hate Jack, even when the writers made it awfully hard to like and root for him, and I thought Matthew Fox's performance in the role was really underrated. 

 

2) The more I rewatch, the more I find myself genuinely liking the understandably hated Kate, despite the fact that she was so often stuck in the thankless role of being the central point of a seemingly interminable love triangle. I find the actress really likable and, sadly, relate to Kate being impulsive, passionate yet afraid of commitment, and kind of emotionally all over the map more than I'd like to admit :) 

 

3) I would have been fine with the generally loved Jin/Sun leaving the show in S2. Their storylines became so tiresomely repetitive for me, and I didn't find Sun nearly as compelling as everyone else did. 

 

4) I don't adore Locke nearly as much as most fans. I actually found him kind of exhausting in large doses. 

 

5) S1, still often listed as many people's favorite season, may have been my least favorite---in part because of the tragic lack of Ben Linus! 

 

6) Hating Charlie isn't unpopular, but my UO is that I was every bit as meh on his forced love interest, Claire. I only liked her when she was crazy :) 

 

7) I really don't like Sawyer much at all until Season 5. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[ShellSeeker]

Yes, but people weren't saying "deep down you're a good man", or "you could have been a good man," but "you are a good man"...or even worse "you're a good dad." If he were a good dad he would have gotten those kids out of dodge ASAP.  Opinions vary, but this is the core of what angered me at how Jax was written.

 

Yes, I agree. He was such an overwrought character, so tortured over what he should do, when the answer was clear: get your kids and your wife, and leave.

 

I lost interest in this show after the season 6 premiere I thought the 

school shooting

was done purely for shock value and nothing else (spoiler tagged for anyone who may still be working their way through the series). I found it very distasteful, and it soured me on the show.

[LeeLeePanda]

4) I don't adore Locke nearly as much as most fans. I actually found him kind of exhausting in large doses.

I hated Locke. I thought he was insufferable.

[ganesh]

Lost was a mess. There were some cool moments.

[ABay]

I don't disagree, but the showrunners' insistent on supplying cool moments that came out of nowhere is part of what made it a mess.

[ganesh]

Totally. The same thing kind of happened on the X Files for the most part. TPTBs even admitted it.

[rue721]

Oh, I agree it's smart to keep that secret unless, of course, you enjoy the entire village showing up at your door with pitchforks. I don't have a problem with Clark keeping his secret, but I kinda wish he's just shut up about it, though.

 

It's not like Clark was hiding his abilities, really, though, and keeping them an *actual* secret. He just ran around doing weird ass stuff and then getting all huffy and offended when people dared to not be utterly oblivious or incurious to it.

 

Also, I get why Clark was scared of spilling his secret. But everyone around him was dealing with dangerous/lethal stuff *constantly,* and if they had enough bravery to just go on with their lives anyway, Clark could at least have had enough bravery (and respect for them) to come clean.

 

Plus, had Clark never heard the old chestnut, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"? Once he started having issues with Lex in particular, he should have tried to appease him with at least some crumbs of truth/(emotional) intimacy/information imo. Even if he didn't care at all about Lex on a personal level, why make an enemy out of him? Plus, Lex proved himself when he was in Belle Reve and was still trying to protect Clark and keeping his secret, so I don't know why Clark didn't bring him into the inner circle at that point. Making him into some bitter, loose canon, ex-friend was really not helpful.

 

What really made Clark look bad to me was that Lex was meanwhile willing to take risks and put himself into danger, even though he was a lot more vulnerable (just being a regular person and all) and supposedly less admirable -- imo, it made Clark look bizarrely cowardly and Lex look bizarrely brave, which was probably not what the show was going for? (Though maybe it was, who knows. I honestly don't understand how the show wanted/expected the audience to see Lex, especially once he was supposed to be "irredeemably bad" and Lionel wasn't).

 

Anyway, I thought it was fine that Clark was uncomplicated. I think that was supposed to be his appeal. He was a picturesque boy from a picturesque family living a picturesque life. And imo all that was sort of refreshing (at first). It was a big part of what I liked about the show's earliest seasons.

 

I don't know that Lex was very complicated, either. But imo he was very likeable. I genuinely admired his mental toughness, fearlessness, relentless persistence, curiosity, hope/ambition (and he kept those traits when he became ~evil~, which made it hard for me to dislike him even once he became The Bad Guy. I genuinely tried! But I just couldn't). Yet again, I don't know if Lex having a lot of genuinely admirable qualities was purposeful on the part of the show or not.

 

The most complicated thing about Lex, imo, is that he and Lionel kept their family stuff very private, and that skewed the other characters' perceptions of each of them. The audience saw the Luthors interacting behind closed doors a lot, and got a lot of information about their history, but the other characters only saw/knew a tiny portion of that. A lot of the time, imo Lex's motivations were really clear and easy to empathize with if you knew what Lionel was saying to him in private or saw his POV/fantasies during one of his numerous near-death experiences, etc, but the other characters weren't privy to any of that and so they would make really harsh assumptions about him based on the tiny, skewed amount of information that they did know. I don't think that made Lex or Lionel especially complicated as characters, but it made their relationships very complicated (and maddening, at times!).

 

Well, I'll take the rest of my thoughts to the Smallville forum, which is probably where they belong!

[paramitch]

This forum is so much fun. Ah, the chance to vent! :-)

 

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. 

 

I have to say, this is my biggest pet peeve ever for television discussions. I routinely see people comment, "I hate X character so I fast forward through all her scenes. Can anyone sum up anything important we need to know from them?"

 

And it absolutely gobsmacks me. I can understand watching, not watching, or hatewatching a show. I can't understand fast-forwarding through whole parts of a show and then commenting anyway. Further, if the viewer hates Character X, then fast-forwards through all of that character's scenes in perpetuity, then they will never ever get the chance to either view that character's continued development or the actor's continued exploration -- both of which are aspects that might eventually change the viewer's mind.

For example, I really disliked Dawn on "Buffy." But eventually, I actually grew to like and respect the work Michelle Trachtenberg did with the character, even if she was never a favorite of mine. I just can't get my mind around zipping through every single scene with a specific character and then remotely feeling as if I'd watched the show.

 

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.

I had to comment on this, since I felt that Owen's storyline in Season 2 of "Torchwood" was one of the most genuinely moving, interesting and creative plot twists I've ever seen, and it was beautifully written and acted. The Season 2 finale was one of the most moving and incredibly upsetting things I've ever seen on TV, and I'm still not over it. It broke my heart. And for me, it was really the finale of the show as well (I thought "Children of Earth" was well-done but that it was a really strange and incredibly depressing one-off, and that "Miracle Day" was campy fun but not remotely to be taken seriously).

 

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.

I agree with this -- in fact, I had to stop watching the show for awhile because the storylines really got intense and upset me for awhile. The funny thing with the muppetness is that eventually, those characters really got to me and had me weeping or laughing. The show was easily one of the most creative things I've ever seen on TV.

 

joelene, I can't get into the homophobic part too much because what really set my hackles up concerns some disturbing future plot I was told about to caution me. As to the torture porn - almost every episode there has been torture, brutality, threat of rape, mixed with full-frontal  female and full frontal male nudity in last weeks episode.

The show strikes me as homophobic because there are only negative portrayals of homosexuality. One character is such an offensive stereotype and the other character, the villain, is a brutal sadist who is clearly coded gay.

 

Couple this with that I find the show to be kind of boring in parts and has a heroine that is getting close to Mary Sue territory I think OUTLANDER is not for me. I was originally going to read the books after I finished the first season but I am so turned off I won't now.

 

Just in case a dissenting opinion is helpful, I really disagree with this, and actually think the "Outlander" heroine is interesting and flawed and not at all a Mary Sue, and that its treatment of homosexuality is actually pretty complex and inclusive, especially for the time period. And while the show includes violent events and spotlights the dangers of the time period (especially to women), I can't agree that it's torture porn. I also like and appreciate the show's approach to nudity, which has included (as with "Penny Dreadful") both male and female nudity, and which refreshingly (in comparison to "Game of Thrones" and its neverending dead-eyed naked female prostitutes) feels like it's relevant to and pitched to the female gaze.

Joelene, I hope you check out the show anyway just to see if it works for you.

 

Meanwhile, speaking of "Outlander," my UO is that I don't really swoon over Jamie, and that the relationship I'm still invested in on the show is that between Claire and her actual husband, Frank. I realize this investment of mine is probably doomed, but there you go. I'm weird. The show just really sold me on their relationship and closeness.

 

My other UO is on "Daredevil." I'm currently about 6 episodes in, and while I like it okay, and am enjoying it, I just don't quite get all the hype. I'm disappointed in the show's female characters (no matter how wonderful the actresses are, they're pretty damselly so far), and the violence is so over the top that for me it's been very hard to keep going. I certainly don't think it's "The Wire" of superhero shows, as some posters and critics have been touting.

 

Last but not least: I love Bran's storyline on "Game of Thrones" and find it fascinating. I'm one of the few, the proud!

[ganesh]

Frank got the shaft, plain and simple. I'm still wondering if the stones actually didn't work for Claire the second time, so she made it be like 'tru wuv' for Jamie because she didn't have a choice. Because she's literally Jamie's property and has no legal rights and there's going to be a huge battle coming up that's going to wipe everyone out. But, I'll stay. Because love? Claire's mouth also gets her in *huge* trouble. Which isn't a UO, and I don't think there's many over on the board who call Claire a Mary Sue.