Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[ganesh]

I don't have to like the characters to like a show, as long as its a good story, and TPTBs are forcing me to like anyone. Not for nothing, everyone on Game of Thrones is reprehensible and I don't have a problem laughing at people dying because they've acted very stupidly. 

[CoderLady]

Well, I'd also say, if you don't want to go to a few conventions or interact with fandom, then maybe don't take the role either. If you're that much of a name actor that you're being considered for the role, then you're probably not hurting for work. It's a occupational hazard in a way. 

 

On the other hand, an actor may like performing the role or need to take it for financial or professional reasons. That's a totally controllable situation. He/she may not be interested in anything but the work itself and not in hot, noisy crowd events answering the same inane questions over and over. I can get behind that. Fans get invested and feel entitled, but I hate the idea of forcing actors to cater to that.

 

Unpopular, I know, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for not participating in extracurricular activities if they're doing their jobs, no matter how public the job.

Edited May 26, 2015 by CoderLady

[Shannon L.]

 

I'm just saying, for me, a story can still be compelling and worth watching even though I don't like the main characters.

I like to have people to root for, but it's not necessary for me, either.  We are one episode away from the series finale of Breaking Bad and, really, there was no one to root for, (although, there were occasional moments of sympathy for certain characters and, without a doubt, the amazing Bob Odenkirk made Saul entertaining), but I still think it was an outstanding show. 

 

Speaking of Breaking Bad, is it unpopular to think that, while everyone was great in their roles, it was Aaron Paul who was the best actor on the show?  Because I'd put him just barely above Bryan Cranston and Bob Odenkirk in the amazing acting category.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Shannon L.

[rue721]

Oh, I don't know, it seems every new show I watch the comments that follow are "I hate all these characters, I don't want to watch this show because no one is rootable or likeable." That's the reason I came to this thread is because I've read this sentiment over and over and over again over the last couple months.

 

I've heard exactly your same opinion coming from fans of *so many* shows, from ~prestige~ dramas like Breaking Bad to schlock like Sons of Anarchy or Game of Thrones to "comedies" like Portlandia to reality TV like [expletive redacted] 19 Kids & Counting. If you think casts made up entirely of despicable characters are interesting that's totally cool for you! But obviously you're part of a critical mass of consumers who hold the same opinion, seeing as those shows have virtually taken over the TV schedule.

 

Though you may have heard me personally say that I don't want to watch a show if none of the characters rootable or likeable. I know I've said it on PTV, anyway. I find those shows unrelentingly boring, because if I just wanted to "hang out" with a bunch of predictable, self-centered assholes, I could accomplish that just fine in real life. No need to pay for a Netflix or Hulu subscription for that shit. And what's to discuss about despicable characters' motivations? They're always after ego stroking and personal gain. What's to discuss about their conflicts? They're always about getting what they want regardless of the collateral damage. And since they only care about the one thing (themselves) anyway, they can only have (fictional) logistical conflicts, which makes for boring stories packed with McGuffins.

 

I also always wonder what audience those shows are even meant for. Viewers who are surrounded by so many kind, gentle, fortunate people in real life that predictable, self-centered assholes are interesting novelties to them? Viewers who are predictable assholes themselves, or aspire to be, and "identify" with despicable characters?

 

Not to say that I never find a "bad" character interesting or likeable -- I do. I just don't like shows that have casts comprised ENTIRELY of them. Which is apparently an unpopular opinion, or at least not the overriding one, since there are SO MANY shows -- and successful, popular or critically-lauded ones, too -- that fit into that category. And many shows that didn't start out that way end up trying to force themselves into that mold and give their characters or the show's tone extra "edge" in an awkward effort to attract a bigger audience, too. Eh.

 

But to each her own. I'm not a fan of the grim!dark in general, what can I say.

 

No, not even the new Daredevil. (I tried, I really did. But it's just so boring *and* bloody. I can't take it as seriously as it takes itself, which makes it too difficult to watch).

[ribboninthesky1]

On the other hand, an actor may like performing the role or need to take it for financial or professional reasons. That's a totally controllable situation. He/she may not be interested in anything but the work itself and not in hot, noisy crowd events answering the same inane questions over and over. I can get behind that. Fans get invested and feel entitled, but I hate the idea of forcing actors to cater to that.

 

Unpopular, I know, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for not participating in extracurricular activities if they're doing their jobs, no matter how public the job.

 

I agree with this, though these days, attending conventions and such is commonly part of promoting the show.  As such, it could be considered part of the job.  I don't think actors should be required to sign autographs and take selfies with strangers if they don't want to, though.  

[ganesh]

Look at San Diego Comic Con. It's basically one giant commercial now. I don't think it's unreasonable if the studio expects the actors to go to a couple of conventions to promote the show or whatever. That's part of the press junket now. I would think with the success of all the comic book movies, LOTRs, GOT, Star Wars, Star Trek, that actors getting involved with these kinds of movies/shows know the deal by now. 

 

No, they don't need to sign autographs and take selfies, but they should be aware of the level of interaction of their fan base. They don't have to live it, but given the success of these megafranchises, just punching in and punching out isn't feasible any more. 

[DittyDotDot]

I've heard exactly your same opinion coming from fans of *so many* shows, from ~prestige~ dramas like Breaking Bad to schlock like Sons of Anarchy or Game of Thrones to "comedies" like Portlandia to reality TV like [expletive redacted] 19 Kids & Counting. If you think casts made up entirely of despicable characters are interesting that's totally cool for you! But obviously you're part of a critical mass of consumers who hold the same opinion, seeing as those shows have virtually taken over the TV schedule.

 

[...]

 

But to each her own. I'm not a fan of the grim!dark in general, what can I say.

 

Well, I don't know that it's obvious. Most the shows you pointed out are not ratings hogs, but benefit from being on cable where the ratings requirements are lower. So, I'm not sure how much of the masses are really watching them and/or liking them. In fact, I believe Breaking Bad struggled for ratings throughout it's entire run and, as I recall, almost didn't get a second season because of the low ratings. And, I've noticed that some people do watch shows even though they don't like them. In reality, I don't know if it's actually an unpopular opinion, but it sure has felt like it over the last few months in many of the show threads I've been visiting. But you apparently have the statistics on that because it's so obvious so I'll defer to you on that.

 

Personally, I don't think unlikeable characters automatically means grim or dark and that wasn't at all what my comment was even about. Many comedies have unlikeable characters...Seinfeld for one, but I still find I liked the show a great deal.

 

What show led me to post what I thought was an unpopular opinion was Halt and Catch Fire. I did not find the show at all grim though nor was it dark, IMO, but every single episode thread was full of people commenting how all the lead characters weren't likeable therefore the show was horrible. Whereas, I just found it an interesting and unique story even though the main characters are not people I would want to hang out with in real life. Seemed like I was one of only two or three others to have this sentiment.

 

Another show I saw this comment for a lot was Last Man on Earth. A comedy where the main character is not someone I think of as likeable, but still found I enjoyed the show immensely which seemed to be unpopular in that show's episode threads. I wouldn't call either of these shows grim, though. In fact, I found Last Man on Earth to be hilarious.

[Shannon L.]

 

Viewers who are surrounded by so many kind, gentle, fortunate people in real life that predictable, self-centered assholes are interesting novelties to them?

i might fit into that category.  But, really, I don't watch too many shows where there is no one to root for.  Breaking Bad and Dare Devil are the only two real dark ones that I enjoyed.  Why? two reasons: 

1. Because I grew up in a tiny New England town in the 70s and 80s and, while getting into a bit of trouble with alcohol after moving to Los Angeles, didn't know much about the "underworld" (gambling, the mob, drugs-which where present, but not in my circle of friends--, etc) and found it fascinating. So, movies and tv were where I got that education, completely understanding that I wasn't getting the full picture because most of them are fiction, thus embellished a lot.

 

2.  I found the technical aspects of both shows amazing and got caught up in it.  They were good productions all around, even if the stories and characters were depressing/hateful.

 

 

Personally, I don't think unlikeable characters automatically means grim or dark and that wasn't at all what my comment was even about. Many comedies have unlikeable characters...Seinfeld for one, but I still find I liked the show a great deal.

Same with Arrested Development, which I loved. 

[spaceytraci1208]

Speaking of Breaking Bad, is it unpopular to think that, while everyone was great in their roles, it was Aaron Paul who was the best actor on the show? Because I'd put him just barely above Bryan Cranston and Bob Odenkirk in the amazing acting category.

I'm truly torn on this one; my only previous exposure to Bryan Cranston was "Malcolm In The Middle" which is what piqued my interest in the show to begin with, and he was phenomenal. Aaron Paul was also fantastic on this show and I grew to love Jesse. The transformation of those characters during the course of the series is startling and definitely a testament to the actors. Maybe I need to do a rewatch before I can choose :)

[MaryPatShelby]

I'm with you on Aaron Paul; absolutely fantastic and nailed it every time.  I kind of hope that's not an unpopular opinion.....

[Shannon L.]

 

I'm with you on Aaron Paul; absolutely fantastic and nailed it every time.  I kind of hope that's not an unpopular opinion.....

I only ask because all I ever heard about was how amazing Bryan Cranston was.

 

 

Maybe I need to do a rewatch before I can choose :)

 

I agree with everything you said, but this?  I don't know if I could watch it again.  It's been such an emotionally exhausting roller coaster ride (especially the second half of the last season!) that I don't know if I could go through it again.  I am, however, recording Better Call Saul and plan on starting that one as soon as we're done with BB.

[Demented Daisy]

And the quality of the show is pretty suspect if there aren't any likeable characters, anyway, because I guarantee there isn't a show in existence for which the writers and producers *set out* to make the entire cast unlikeable and impossible to root for.

 

 

You didn't watch The Slap, did you?  I'm pretty sure that every single one of those characters (well, maybe not the last one) was written for the audience to hate in some way.  All were self-righteous hypocrites that were so wrapped up in their own BS that they couldn't see what they were doing to the people around them.

 

But that might just be my interpretation.

 

Back to lurking.

[Chaos Theory]

Personally, I like watching shows about characters that have *some* amount of integrity or *some* ideals, because those characters have actual dilemmas and conflicts. Which makes for interesting stories. If a character has no moral/ethical qualms about anything, then he can just choose the most selfish and convenient way of doing things -- which becomes predictable, irritating, and boring to watch imo.

It depends what you mean by *some*. The first few season of Sons of Anarchy was basically a battle for Jax's soul. Bates Motel wouldn't work if you don't feel a little bad for Norman as he falls deeper and deeper into insanity. Dexter was often at its best when Dexter was forming personal relationships around him and trying to be more human. The Americans work because of the twisted American dream that is shown inside a perfect American family. All these shows have *some* amount of integrity but it is a twisted one and it is often that which I find most interesting.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Anna Yolei]

On the other hand, an actor may like performing the role or need to take it for financial or professional reasons. That's a totally controllable situation. He/she may not be interested in anything but the work itself and not in hot, noisy crowd events answering the same inane questions over and over. I can get behind that. Fans get invested and feel entitled, but I hate the idea of forcing actors to cater to that.

Unpopular, I know, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for not participating in extracurricular activities if they're doing their jobs, no matter how public the job.

Perfect example being Scott Bakula taking to role of Archer on Enterprise because he had two very young kids at the time that he wanted to be home to raise. He's only just now started to do conventions in the last few years now that the youngest is in high school. And I get that and have props for him putting his family first over fanboys.

[Anna Yolei]

Another show I saw this comment for a lot was Last Man on Earth. A comedy where the main character is not someone I think of as likeable, but still found I enjoyed the show immensely which seemed to be unpopular in that show's episode threads. I wouldn't call either of these shows grim, though. In fact, I found Last Man on Earth to be hilarious.

I just watched season one last week, and I found it funny too. I don't think Phil Tandy Miller is any worse than many of the typical sitcom leads. But he plays off very well against Kirsten Schaal's neroutic Carol.

I do have one nitpick on the show about all the cars on the show still being able to run an operate two years after the fall of civilization. Where do they get the gas? Is this gonna be like Giligan's Island where the cast never wear anything twice despite being on what was a 3 hour tour?

I did like the last scene of season one,though

with Phil's brother being the Last Man in Space calling Hoston with no response.

[DittyDotDot]

I just watched season one last week, and I found it funny too. I don't think Phil Tandy Miller is any worse than many of the typical sitcom leads. But he plays off very well against Kirsten Schaal's neroutic Carol.

I do have one nitpick on the show about all the cars on the show still being able to run an operate two years after the fall of civilization. Where do they get the gas? Is this gonna be like Giligan's Island where the cast never wear anything twice despite being on what was a 3 hour tour?

I did like the last scene of season one,though

with Phil's brother being the Last Man in Space calling Hoston with no response.

 

Oh, the cars are just one of the many things I finally just had to accept because I did enjoy the show

lactating cow kinda boggles the mind too.

I actually did start thinking of the show as a modern day Gilligan's Island, which in some ways made the show more hilarious to me. Thinking of Todd as Maryanne was very fun for me!

[ToxicUnicorn]

No, not even the new Daredevil. (I tried, I really did. But it's just so boring *and* bloody. I can't take it as seriously as it takes itself, which makes it too difficult to watch).

 

I have a low tolerance for scripted shows that seem to take themselves so much more seriously than it seems possible to deliver.  It's a visceral (and perhaps stupid) reaction on my part.  The Good Wife is one that comes to mind, and maybe Downton Abbey and House of Cards: none have appealed enough to try them.  Many talk shows ... The View, notably.  I think if I watched that show, I would get hives.

 

It's a problem when the show switches to self-important mode mid-stream, as well.  For example, I enjoyed Revenge a lot the first season, when it seemed campy and focused on being really beautiful.  When it started doing big-time terrorist plots and there wasn't a single character who was having fun anymore, it lost me forever.  You're not good enough to pull that off, show. 

[truthaboutluv]

I only ask because all I ever heard about was how amazing Bryan Cranston was.

 

 

While Bryan definitely got a lot of press because he was the lead, Aaron did win two (or was it 3) Emmys for the show which I definitely think made it clear that the critics were aware how amazing he was as well on the show. 

[Shannon L.]

 

While Bryan definitely got a lot of press because he was the lead, Aaron did win two (or was it 3) Emmys for the show which I definitely think made it clear that the critics were aware how amazing he was as well on the show.

Ah.  I don't watch the Emmy's and don't really read up on them when they are over, so I wasn't aware of this. Good.  He definitely deserved them.  Thanks for pointing that out.

[Princess Sparkle]

While Bryan definitely got a lot of press because he was the lead, Aaron did win two (or was it 3) Emmys for the show which I definitely think made it clear that the critics were aware how amazing he was as well on the show. 

Aaron won three - and honestly, it should've been four.  I still cannot figure out how Emmy voters thought Bobby Carnivale (who was very good) was better than Aaron Paul in Buyout (the ep he submitted).  

 

My DWTS UO: I have never really  bought into the fact that TPTB script and manipulate the seasons as much as people seem to think they do.  I think they want high ratings and they could not give two shits if that comes from Maks winning, Derek winning, or [insert pro here] winning.  

[truthaboutluv]

Aaron won three - and honestly, it should've been four. I still cannot figure out how Emmy voters thought Bobby Carnivale (who was very good) was better than Aaron Paul in Buyout (the ep he submitted).

Thanks. I was thinking it was three but for some reason could only remember him winning the two. I could have just googled to be sure but I was too lazy to bother.

[Sparger Springs]

The appeal of Sex and the City always eluded me, as did 30 Rock and How I Met Your Mother. The Law and Order franchises never held my interest. Anything Kardashian related can go fuck itself.

Years ago when sex in the city first started and I didn't have HBO. I took myself to blockbuster and rented the season on VHS. I wanted to know what everyone was talking about. I want my 3 bucks back.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Well if you manage to get some money out of Blockbuster, could you also get me some blood out of a stone?

[pandora spocks]

I've tried to like Daphne Oz on The Chew but I just can't. She's the kind of person back in high school who would remind the teacher to give homework assignments during a holiday weekend. Her self righteousness when it comes to eating healthy borders on the insufferable.

We get it, you're Dr. Oz's daughter. More than likely that's how she got her gig, too. I loathe Dr. Oz and that may color my feelings towards Daphne. Nah, she's a goody two-shoes prig.

[Snowprince]

I agree with this, though these days, attending conventions and such is commonly part of promoting the show.  As such, it could be considered part of the job.  I don't think actors should be required to sign autographs and take selfies with strangers if they don't want to, though.  

On the other hand, an actor may like performing the role or need to take it for financial or professional reasons. That's a totally controllable situation. He/she may not be interested in anything but the work itself and not in hot, noisy crowd events answering the same inane questions over and over. I can get behind that. Fans get invested and feel entitled, but I hate the idea of forcing actors to cater to that.

 

Unpopular, I know, but I don't think anyone should be penalized for not participating in extracurricular activities if they're doing their jobs, no matter how public the job.

 

 

 The only thing an actor/performer owes me in return for buying a ticket or tuning in their show is the best possible performance they can deliver. They do that, they've upheld their end of the bargain and anything beyond that is icing on the cake.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Snowprince

[SmithW6079]

The only thing an actor/performer owes me in return for buying a ticket or tuning in their show is the best possible performance they can deliver. They do that, they've upheld their end of the bargain and anything beyond that is icing on the cake.

 

Ah, but for some fanboys & girls, that's not enough. Sometimes, the people who can discuss the intricacies of Klingon politics (and I may or may not have resembled those individuals in the past) expect that the actors have the same level of obsession that they do. 

[ganesh]

I don't need the actors myself to come over my house and chat with me about playing Spock or Captain America, but for these movies and those roles, overall, that's not nearly enough. The acting part is not 100% of the job. They need to be familiar with the universe they're in at some level. While they shouldn't know everything, they have to at least understand it. I mean, come on, getting a role in the new Star Wars isn't just "show up on set, have your lines prepared, and act." I'd almost bet that the contract has agreed upon appearances at Comic Con, etc. I don't think it's too much to expect the actors to have seen the movies at least once, just like the LOTR actors probably should have read the books. 

 

That's part of the reason the 'reboot' is the go to movie paradigm. It frees up the writers and actors from having to know decades of minute details. As long as they have a general idea of how Two Face used to be a good guy, or how Peter Parker becomes Spider Man, then they're ok. 

 

These megafranchises are worth multiple billions and it's not overly much for the studio to want actors to be more aware and accessible. 

 

Original material like Orphan Black or even Penny Dreadful to an extent is much more interesting to me anyway. The actors have a much more creative freedom and they seem way more excited when fans love the show. You're playing Spock or Batman; there's lots of constraints on what you can do. No one is going to be saying, 'I love how you played Spock when his mother died.' They're going to be saying 'Spock isn't this, isn't that.' 

[Snowprince]

Contractual obligations you agreed to when you signed on to play the part are one thing, individual extracurriculars are quite another. Familiarizing one's self with the material and having an understanding of the universe is all part of preparing to deliver that best possible performance. That's just being a professional. As a member of the audience or "fandom" I would certainly appreciate any extracurricular activities the performer may choose to engage in but am I "entitled" to them? No.

 

Obviously mileage will vary, just my opinion.   

Edited May 28, 2015 by Snowprince

[ganesh]

It depends what's in the contract then. I think some con appearances would be included. Especially Comic Con. I would doubt being required to tweet is. The main point is that for these kinds of roles, the extras are becoming part of playing the role. 

[ToxicUnicorn]

Familiarizing one's self with the material and having an understanding of the universe is all part of preparing to deliver that best possible performance. That's just being a professional.

I wish I could remember who it was - there was an interview with a star of some very well known adaptation who said he had never read the source material.  I was stunned.  He wanted to be able to make his own interpretation of the role.  Was it Harry Potter?  Lord of the Rings?  Those are the only two I have been invested in.

 

I can see how one might not want to know about all things held dear by the fandoms, but I find it inexcusable not to have read the original source material.  As for promotions and comic-cons and stuff, I think the actor should be able to choose - or work out his own contractual agreements.

 

I have a few UOs about Suits.  I'm at the tail end of Season 3, and I don't think the character or actress who plays Rachel is all that bad.  She's not very good and I always feel like her gaze is off, as if she is staring about 1.5 inches away from where I would, but I don't think she's horrible, either.  Also, I don't absolutely love Gina Torres, who plays Jessica, although she looks exquisite in her expensive clothes.  She doesn't seem to have much range that I've seen, in 3 seasons.  (However, I'm not a Firefly fan, so maybe I haven't seen the light ...)

[ganesh]

I think LH said that she didn't read the books to prepare for playing Cersei on Game of Thrones. That's the exception imo because the books aren't completed yet, and there's a lot left out of the books for the tv show, where if you did read everything, you'd be bogged down in the text versus making the performance. With TPTBs taking slightly different directions on the tv show, I can buy it. 

 

Not reading Lord of the Rings, or watching Star Wars, would be ridiculous, however. Or not watching some of Star Trek.

 

One of the many things I liked about Ben Browder was that he watched all the SG1 episodes when they hired him, so he knew how to play off the main characters, and it was his choice to call Daniel Jackson just "Jackson" based on that. And I believe Summer Glau watched all the Terminator movies when she got cast on the tv show, so her "model" was the same as the original. 

 

I don't really buy the "I want to make my own interpretation of the role" for the most part. I mean, Hamlet's been done a billion times and nearly everyone has read it. I think if you're a good enough actor, you can bring your own interpretation of it. Or, Richard III. Or Doctor Who. I don't expect an actor to watch the last 50 years of the show, but you've got to watch some of it to get a feel of where you fit in, or how you want to play the Doctor. 

 

I don't think MV had read LOTR prior to being cast as Aragorn, actually. I don't know if he ended up reading the books. I know IM carried around the books and harassed Peter Jackson for screwing up Gandalf's dialogue, so I don't think anything was lost in his performance for reading the books. 

Edited May 30, 2015 by ganesh

[DittyDotDot]

I'd think it would depend on what the source material is. With something like Hamlet, it's been done a thousand times over, so is there really a "new" way to do it? But, something like Game of Thrones where there is no previous performance to look at, it might be better to only stick with what the show is giving you to work with so you can be true to what the show is doing and not have information rattling around in your brain that may never come to fruition on-screen. However, something like Spock on Star Trek, that character was really formed by someone else, I think you almost need to see those performances to help build your own.

 

I've noticed, actors don't always like to know where their character is going; only where they've come from. They like to have things revealed like it would be for their character so they don't subconsciously show their hand too early. I think some of this differs on whether it's a movie or TV, though. A movie, the actors usually know the beginning, middle and end going in, but on TV that journey could be two or three years and even then change. So, on TV getting too attached to an idea could really be a problem.

 

Personally, if an actor doesn't want to do conventions, it doesn't bother me. Cons are this strange place of where the fan/actor boundaries get broken down--some actors don't feel comfortable in these situations and some of them are just not good at it. It's nice when actors want to be accessible to the fans, but forcing someone to do something will probably not be an enjoyable experience for the fans, IMO.

Edited May 30, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[ganesh]

I'd think it would depend on what the source material is. With something like Hamlet, it's been done a thousand times over, so is there really a "new" way to do it?

 

On the HBO show Rome, they certainly found a new way to do 'et tu Brutus'. 

 

Edited May 30, 2015 by ganesh

[ToxicUnicorn]

Not reading Lord of the Rings, or watching Star Wars, would be ridiculous, however. Or not watching some of Star Trek.

 

My memory might be failing; however, I think it might have been someone on the new cast of Star Trek who said this.  Or maybe it was the guy who played Aragorn.  Either way, I was pretty surprised.

 

I think LH said that she didn't read the books to prepare for playing Cersei on Game of Thrones. That's the exception imo because the books aren't completed yet, and there's a lot left out of the books for the tv show, where if you did read everything, you'd be bogged down in the text versus making the performance. With TPTBs taking slightly different directions on the tv show, I can buy it.

 

 

I've noticed, actors don't always like to know where their character is going; only where they've come from. They like to have things revealed like it would be for their character so they don't subconsciously show their hand too early.

 

I suppose these are both ok.  Not knowing the basic history of Star Trek or LOTR, though?   Not ok with me.

[ganesh]

I don't think the actors would have been cast in Star Trek without being asked to know something of the show universe. 

[ganesh]

The phrase 'torture porn' is vastly vastly overused.

[DittyDotDot]

I feel the same way about "Mary Sue" ganesh.

[ganesh]

That was my next one. One can want a show to be whatever one wants, but if that's not what the show is or has ever presented itself as such, that's not the show's fault. 

[janie jones]

It depends what's in the contract then. I think some con appearances would be included. Especially Comic Con. I would doubt being required to tweet is. The main point is that for these kinds of roles, the extras are becoming part of playing the role. 

I can't remember where I read this, but apparently more and more, posting on social media is becoming part of people's contracts, along with regular stuff like promoting the work on talk shows.  I remember thinking that was really crappy, because I wouldn't want my boss to force me to post on social media in my spare time.

[SmithW6079]

I brought up the point originally, and really what I meant in the actor/fanboy debate is that actors should be respectful that there will be fans who can discuss Romulan politics quite seriously, but fanboys/girls should also be respectful that there will be actors who don't care about Klingon marriage rituals.

**

I know the new State Farm commercial with the Coneheads is evoking nostalgia for some folks, but I never found them funny, even back on SNL.

[Chaos Theory]

I feel the same way about "Mary Sue" ganesh.

I hate the term "woobie". I think it is disingenuous. Of course there are characters writers want us to feel sorry for. I think in essence what people mean when they use the term woobie is "I resent the writers wanting me to feel sorry for a character I want to hate."

[memememe76]

To me, actors attending conventions, press junkets, etc. is like me having to attend business functions, etc. Establishing and growing a business network is just part of a lot of people's jobs.

 

I would love not having to be nice to my clients or just not interact with them--just get the job done and be done with it. Because some of my clients suck. But I have to be nice to them too.

[andromeda331]

Contractual obligations you agreed to when you signed on to play the part are one thing, individual extracurriculars are quite another. Familiarizing one's self with the material and having an understanding of the universe is all part of preparing to deliver that best possible performance. That's just being a professional. As a member of the audience or "fandom" I would certainly appreciate any extracurricular activities the performer may choose to engage in but am I "entitled" to them? No. 

 

 

I do agree with this. But it is nice when the actor, actress or even the show goes the extra mile for the fans. Like I remember when Natalie Portman was at Comic Con for another movie but came down to visit the Star Wars fans. Or the tv show Castle having published the books that "Castle" wrote and even has his own website and twitter account. 

[ganesh]

That's the thing. If the actor can bank some good will with the fandom, it goes a long long way. I don't even think they have to go that far above and beyond. Lots of the GOT actors have done some little things here and there and they are all universally loved.

[DeLurker]

I can't remember where I read this, but apparently more and more, posting on social media is becoming part of people's contracts, along with regular stuff like promoting the work on talk shows.  I remember thinking that was really crappy, because I wouldn't want my boss to force me to post on social media in my spare time.

This will be a double edged sword - you have some people who are very good and entertaining at social media which will benefit the show, but there are those who are totally inept and will engage in PR nightmares on behalf of the show.

 

Sleepy Hollow had this.  Orlando Jones was on the show and often live tweeted; he was hysterical, articulate and extremely good at social media (including throwing shade when shade was due).  Some of the writers or producers would get on there and explain the storyline you just saw which did not come across at all in the episode.  If you dare disagree with their vision, they called you a "hater". 

[islandgal140]

Hispster racism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_racism

 

Seriously they could have saved themselves all the time and effort of writing all that and just put up a picture of Tina Fey. I grew tired of her subtle racist shit trying to look like commentary around 30 Rock. The Tracy Morgan stuff was just WOW! Embarrassed it took me so long to see it.

 

My UO is that I have been trying to make myself like Outlander. It is a beautiful show, beautifully shot, written (some of the time) and not badly paced with some hot love scenes between characters with great chem but yet I have 4 of the last episodes sitting on my DVR unwatched because it feels like a bit of a chore to watch. I recently figured out why - I am just too practical and pragmatic for this shit! I just find it unfathomable that someone from a more modern time would choose to stay in the 18th century. I'm sorry I just can't imagine and can't suspend my disbelief of being so damn dickmatized that I would give up vaccines, modern medicine(hello no epidural and more likely to die during childbirth), tv, indoor plumbing, electricity, toilets that flush, and some semblance of women's right, just for some good peen who is on the run from the law, damn near homeless because of that, probably only bathes for special occasions and doesn't know what a toothbrush is. No sir. Hell, I would be back to high-fiving those rocks just for hot indoor showers and tampons alone. Love be damned!  Honestly no guy is worth living in the literal fucking past so I've officially given up but no judgment on those who love this type of escapism. It is just not for me.

 

I feel like the lead actor that plays Jamie on Outlander kinda looks like the dude who plays Reek/Theon on Game of Thrones from certain angles, the main difference being Outlander guy is taller and more buff and can sometimes appear better looking. 

 

The Castor boys have killed Orphan Black's enjoyment for me. I hate them. I dislike the Proletheans and the army aspect of this too. Give me the days when it was just the Sarah and her sister clones, Dyad and weirdos that had tails. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by islandgal140

[potatoradio]

 

I don't understand why people can't just carefully watch a show and make their own conclusions without having to check what the showrunners says how they should have watched.

 

Wait...people do this? Forget that noise, if it's on my teevee, that's what I'm watching and forming an opinion about. It might be kind of interesting to hear the writer's intent or what they were actually going for, but that's as far as that goes. Think I'll just keep doing things wrong, then! :)

 

 

Irony is a technique, not a school of thought, or a higher calling.

 

I so need this on a bumper sticker or office plaque.

 

My UO: I love Terrence Howard on Wayward Pines. Even his overacting is fabulous to watch.

 

 

[ganesh]

Wait...people do this?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but have you read some of the discussion threads?

There are countless "I need to see what the show runner said about that" or, Well, they said the scene was supposed to be this not what you saw.

Check most of my posts in here. To be fair to this site, when I have asked for outside media to be tagged or in its own thread, they have.

I liked the finale of Outlander, and honestly do not understand the shock and outrage. Actually I kind of do.

[Ohwell]

Seriously they could have saved themselves all the time and effort of writing all that and just put up a picture of Tina Fey. I grew tired of her subtle racist shit trying to look like commentary around 30 Rock. The Tracy Morgan stuff was just WOW! Embarrassed it took me so long to see it.

I wish I could add more "likes" to this. 

Edited June 2, 2015 by Ohwell

[Rick Kitchen]

 

Sleepy Hollow had this.  Orlando Jones was on the show and often live tweeted; he was hysterical, articulate and extremely good at social media (including throwing shade when shade was due).  Some of the writers or producers would get on there and explain the storyline you just saw which did not come across at all in the episode.  If you dare disagree with their vision, they called you a "hater". 

 

Sounds like Ron Carlavati from General Hospital, who blocks people right and left.  (Including myself)