Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Brandi Maxxxx]

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.

By pure coincidence, right now I'm watching the episode where Tracy is being targeted by the "Black Crusaders" for perpetuating stereotypes.

[Chaos Theory]

I actually prefer not knowing who a show runner of a show is. To be honest half the time I don't really care. There have been too many times I've heard people say..."oh it's a [enter show runner here] show it will probably suck" months before the show starts. I think people miss out on good shows because of it.

[Danny Franks]

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.

 

 

Is that not just code for 'I really didn't like that, but I don't want to say so because I like the show'? 

 

Ignoring showrunner interviews is fine, except for when the conclusion you draw from a scene or storyline is completely different than they apparently intended it to be and felt that it was. So then you're just out of step with the show and likely to find more and more things not making sense. I would cite some examples from Castle of when what the showrunner thought was on screen was simply not evident to me, but I'd get cramp in my fingers long before I finished typing.

[ganesh]

Part of the problem is the show runners use social media to clean up their mess. That's foul imo. Make the show and let the viewers take it in. Too often just making a good show isn't the primary task.

[Chaos Theory]

Part of the problem is the show runners use social media to clean up their mess. That's foul imo. Make the show and let the viewers take it in. Too often just making a good show isn't the primary task.

But to play devils advocate for a second: there have been plenty of times I think something is obvious and I happen to go to a social media board or even Previously to give my opinion and half the audience us like "huh? Stupid? Plot holes." Where I saw a good well written story. Sometimes showrunners get exasperated and try to explain what THEY thought was obvious. Then again some showrunners are jerks.

[supposebly]

I just don't see how explaining things afterwards is going to help. All it does is tell me: you did a bad job if you have to do that. I prefer other viewers write about their opinions and views and I can work with that.

 

Not if the showrunner or writer does it. That basically emphasizes that they did a bad job. Even if they didn't.

 

Imagine any writer going out and explain what they had in mind. Once it's out there, you can't take it back or change it. It is what it is and people will either get it or not.

[ABay]

One of my several objections to showrunners et al explaining afterwards is that I feel like they're trying to control interpretation and I resent it, because it closes off all sorts of fun discussions and ideas. Once the authority says X is X, even though X is clearly M to a good many viewers and B to some others, it shuts down everyone who doesn't see X as X. Don't tell me what to think about what I just saw and that I'm wrong because it isn't what you think I should think.

 

And, also, showrunner, you don't control everything that comes across on screen. That's what subtext is about.

Edited June 2, 2015 by ABay

[Chaos Theory]

Ahhhh subtext. I stopped watching The Blacklist in season 1 for......reasons but I turned it on half way through season 2 and I really enjoyed it so much so that I looked at fan fiction and wow! Interpretation and subtext get messed up sometimes and when the audience wants to see their interpretation on screen I can see showrunners getting exasperated. (See also once upon a time and Rizzoli & Isles).

[UYI]

I don't know if this is considered a UO or not, but I haven't seen it talked about much recently and it relates to Caitlyn Jenner:

 

I fully support her transition 100 percent. It is obvious she is finally living her life as she feels it was intended to be, and I think she looks great on the cover of Vanity Fair.

 

It is very, very hard for me to celebrate this, however, when I remember the car accident she was involved in and the woman who was killed as a result of it. I absolutely believe it was an accident and that Caitlyn would never intentionally do something to cause this (and I'll admit I'm not aware of everything about the case and it may turn out she wasn't as responsible as it first appeared she was), but the fact that this accident has been as forgotten as it appears to be since the interview with Diane Sawyer and the Vanity Fair cover is actually pretty mind-blowing to me. It would be much easier to celebrate this if that accident had never occurred/if there wasn't a fatality involved. 

[Gudzilla]

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. 

I wish someone would tell the shippers this. ;)

[partofme]

I don't know if this is considered a UO or not, but I haven't seen it talked about much recently and it relates to Caitlyn Jenner:

 

I fully support her transition 100 percent. It is obvious she is finally living her life as she feels it was intended to be, and I think she looks great on the cover of Vanity Fair.

 

It is very, very hard for me to celebrate this, however, when I remember the car accident she was involved in and the woman who was killed as a result of it. I absolutely believe it was an accident and that Caitlyn would never intentionally do something to cause this (and I'll admit I'm not aware of everything about the case and it may turn out she wasn't as responsible as it first appeared she was), but the fact that this accident has been as forgotten as it appears to be since the interview with Diane Sawyer and the Vanity Fair cover is actually pretty mind-blowing to me. It would be much easier to celebrate this if that accident had never occurred/if there wasn't a fatality involved. 

 

I could forgive her for the accident, mistakes happen, however she was texting and driving a week later.   Plus she pretty much abandoned her first 4 kids.

[Ohwell]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Caitlyn Jenner.

 

Edited June 2, 2015 by Ohwell

[UYI]

I could forgive her for the accident, mistakes happen, however she was texting and driving a week later.   Plus she pretty much abandoned her first 4 kids.

 

Same here. If she was, in fact, texting when the accident occurred, that makes it harder for me to say that "accidents happen" in this case, along with being seen texting and driving a week later (which whether she texting when the accident happened or not, she should have known better than to do it after the fact).

Edited June 2, 2015 by UYI

[potatoradio]

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.

In the discussions I've read, there are mentions of what's said on social media by the show runners, but not any heated discussions where someone called someone else out for having a different interp than what was posted elsewhere. Color me surprised at learning how deep the discussion gets on some threads.

[Chaos Theory]

Frankly, I don't give a damn about Caitlyn Jenner.

I don't either but I do care about the topic and anyone who has the courage to find out who they are at least in this one way has my respect.

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Great for Caitlyn Jenner that she's out, and great for the trans community that they have such a mainstream celebrity whose public debut can foster such education and acceptance, but I do NOT like that woman, even without her horrible car accident. I hate the Kardashians, but at least their bullheaded shameless quest for fame was open. Caitlyn experienced a late life career resurgence due to that family and had the gall to act like she was above it all.

[Athena]

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 is becoming increasingly common in other industries as well. If the company has a social media presence, they want you to be apart of it by linking to them with your social media profiles, tweeting or writing blog posts. As someone who has worked in social media, I actually find these contractual obligations for non-social media jobs annoying. Not everyone enjoys all aspects of social media equally and the fact it's becoming increasingly mandatory for jobs is exasperating.

[Swansong]

 

Part of the problem is the show runners use social media to clean up their mess. That's foul imo. Make the show and let the viewers take it in. Too often just making a good show isn't the primary task.

Exactly. I've known show runners who clearly made a mistake who claimed a particular interpretation that had never really been intended just to cover up said mistake. Sometimes we give show runners way too much in thinking they think as deeply about any given scene or character or couple moments as fans on the boards do. Sometimes they write a particular way because it looks cool or it was fun not because they intend it to have some deep meaning. And I wouldn't exactly be shocked to discover some show runner theories come after the fact just because they happened to be asked a specific question. And sometimes scenes can take on a life of their own. That's not to say fans can't have their own biases and wishful thinking when it comes to favourite/ disliked characters or ships etc., but generally I think, for better and for worst, fans tend to think way, way more about what's really going on on a show than the creators (and most viewers) often do.

[supposebly]

 

That's not to say fans can't have their own biases and wishful thinking when it comes to favourite/ disliked characters or ships etc., but generally I think, for better and for worst, fans tend to think way, way more about what's really going on on a show than the creators (and most viewers) often do.

I think that's true for every literary review/analysis/consumption. Just until now authors were not on social media interacting with consumers trying to explain things in retrospect.

I don't really see the point of it all. I don't need the writer interfering with my interpretation. They might have theirs but its theirs but not necessarily mine. So what difference does it make if they tell me afterwards what they intended? I still might not agree with it. If anyone could talk to Shakespeare today and get his opinion on the millions of analyses that have been written about his works, does anyone really think it would make a difference if he explained what he "really" wanted?

The whole point and fun of literary interpretation is that everyone has a different take. There are commonalities but it's the differences where the fun lies.

[Blergh]

Is it okay for me to not have to instantly fawn over the Jenner Formerly Known as Bruce? I mean, yes, I get this individual has shown others that it's okay to admit having been uncomfortable in one's skin and deciding to do something about it and I'll even say that no matter how this person has appeared, this person has always seemed nicer than their most recent ex. Still, just because this person has made this transition doesn't erase the sad  recent death of the other driver nor the neglect of the children that  this individual had with three spouses.  And, forgive m,e but  I find it a bit jarring that  many expect everyone to instantly refer to this person by a new name  instead of the one that was made famous almost 40 years ago and retroactively pretend that this person had always been female.

[Demented Daisy]

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.

 

Sorry I'm late to the party.  It was Michael Gambon.  (Oh, and apparently Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman.)

[Ohwell]

I don't either but I do care about the topic and anyone who has the courage to find out who they are at least in this one way has my respect.

 

.

When I think of someone who was groundbreaking in the transsexual community, I think of Dr. Renee Richards. 

[VanillaBear85]

 And, forgive m,e but  I find it a bit jarring that  many expect everyone to instantly refer to this person by a new name  instead of the one that was made famous almost 40 years ago and retroactively pretend that this person had always been female.

 

I believe it is more about those who continue to call her Bruce or use masculine pronouns intentionally rather than by mistake. Although the switch really should not be that difficult. Those who intentionally call her Bruce or use masculine pronouns are just assholes.

[ToxicUnicorn]

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.

Sorry I'm late to the party.  It was Michael Gambon.  (Oh, and apparently Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman.)

 

Thank you, Demented Daisy.  That was it.  Count me among those who did not cotton to the second Dumbledore.  Snape, however .... Alan was fabulous.  Voldemort? eh.

[DeLurker]

 

 

I believe it is more about those who continue to call her Bruce or use masculine pronouns intentionally rather than by mistake. Although the switch really should not be that difficult. Those who intentionally call her Bruce or use masculine pronouns are just assholes.

 

Have a family member who is switching.  Changing pronouns is much harder that I expected. 

[Danny Franks]

Is it okay for me to not have to instantly fawn over the Jenner Formerly Known as Bruce? I mean, yes, I get this individual has shown others that it's okay to admit having been uncomfortable in one's skin and deciding to do something about it and I'll even say that no matter how this person has appeared, this person has always seemed nicer than their most recent ex. Still, just because this person has made this transition doesn't erase the sad  recent death of the other driver nor the neglect of the children that  this individual had with three spouses.  And, forgive m,e but  I find it a bit jarring that  many expect everyone to instantly refer to this person by a new name  instead of the one that was made famous almost 40 years ago and retroactively pretend that this person had always been female.

 

I find it rather disconcerting that any slip where someone calls this person by their old name is immediately jumped on by self-appointed moral guardians, who tell you you're a bigot or insensitive or prejudiced, just because it's an issue that isn't particularly interesting or important to everyone.

 

This may not be PC or touchy-feely enough, but for some of us, this issue of gender just doesn't rank on the scale of importance. And people shouldn't be crucified for not caring one way or the other. I barely knew who Bruce Jenner was before this, so why should I care that she is now a woman? 

 

But when I do think about it, trying to paint it as a black or white, 'he is now she' issue is self-defeating. Because then you have to say, 'oh yeah, she won the Men's Decathlon gold medal in the Olympics'. It's not that simple, and it shouldn't be painted as such. I doubt it's that simple for her or her family, either.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Danny Franks

[Anna Yolei]

I actually prefer not knowing who a show runner of a show is. To be honest half the time I don't really care. There have been too many times I've heard people say..."oh it's a [enter show runner here] show it will probably suck" months before the show starts. I think people miss out on good shows because of it.

I dunno, some are so prolific in their patterns that I can't say I'd blame them for not boarding the Titanic, so to speak. A number of Trek fans didn't bother with Enterprise after Rick Berman ran Voyager into the ground--a decision that was well justified in the finale that was dubbed one of the biggest fandom middle fingers until HIMYM. That,and one of the episodes revolved around the Captain getting the hots for the Vulcan second-in-command that he's hated while barking at the doctor to fix his dog that only got sick by his own carelessness.

[mansonlamps]

I find it rather disconcerting that any slip where someone calls this person by their old name is immediately jumped on by self-appointed moral guardians, who tell you you're a bigot or insensitive or prejudiced, just because it's an issue that isn't particularly interesting or important to everyone.

This may not be PC or touchy-feely enough, but for some of us, this issue of gender just doesn't rank on the scale of importance. And people shouldn't be crucified for not caring one way or the other. I barely knew who Bruce Jenner was before this, so why should I care that she is now a woman?

But when I do think about it, trying to paint it as a black or white, 'he is now she' issue is self-defeating. Because then you have to say, 'oh yeah, she won the Men's Decathlon gold medal in the Olympics'. It's not that simple, and it shouldn't be painted as such. I doubt it's that simple for her or her family, either.

Could not agree more with this entire post. I hate being told what to think and feel about issues that are complicated and multi-faceted as though there is only one "right" way to see things otherwise you are an asshole.

[Chaos Theory]

I dunno, some are so prolific in their patterns that I can't say I'd blame them for not boarding the Titanic, so to speak. A number of Trek fans didn't bother with Enterprise after Rick Berman ran Voyager into the ground--a decision that was well justified in the finale that was dubbed one of the biggest fandom middle fingers until HIMYM. That,and one of the episodes revolved around the Captain getting the hots for the Vulcan second-in-command that he's hated while barking at the doctor to fix his dog that only got sick by his own carelessness.

And then you have Glee and people HATE Ryan Murphy for it and yet I think American Horror story is damn near genious and am looking forward to Scream Queens. It works both ways.

[ganesh]

The issue with Jenner is, there are tons of people who remember when Bruce Jenner ruled the world, figuratively, by totally dominating at the Olympics. Those people ate their Wheaties looking at his face on the box. I can get it's hard for them to really wrap their heads around it.

I suppose it's good if a more tolerant discussion about gender etc. comes out of this. I find the sensationalism of the transition distasteful. Do you need your own reality show? Magazine covers? You don't get to erase your past either.

[Misslindsey]

I am not a fan of Amy Schumer. I feel like I should be because I agree with a lot of her views, but something about her just rubs me the wrong way.

 

Another UO is that I do not ship Jake and Amy on Brooklyn Nine Nine. I like both of the characters and like them as friends, but together not so much.

 

A hugely UO is that I like Bethenny Frankel and Heather Dubrow on Real Housewives of New York and Orange County. I do not like everything they do or say, but I like them more than most of their castmates.

[proserpina65]

ToxicUnicorn, on 29 May 2015 - 10:03 PM, said:

 

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.

 

 

Sorry I'm late to the party.  It was Michael Gambon.  (Oh, and apparently Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman.)

I've never had a problem with this, actually.  I respect that they're actors, and they want to work from the scripts which they're given for any particular project, regardless of whether or not that project is based on a book, tv show, previous movie or whatever.  Some actors read the books, etc., and some don't, and I don't think either choice is being disrespectful to the source material or the fandom.

[Chaos Theory]

When it comes to TV we are all different and come from different places and sensibilities. Showrunners have their own ideas that might sound amazing to them all the way up to production and suck balls to audiences. Sometimes it is a matter of it sounding better in their head then it comes out on screen and sometimes ideas don't translate well to everyone. I may get it.....you may not. Doesn't make either of us right. My problem comes when flame wars happen and when throwing shade turns into throwing fire. Fire burns even the toughest skin.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[mansonlamps]

I haven't quite given up yet but I am very close to adding The Middle to shows for which I can no longer read the forums because the rabid fangurls who worship Sue Heck, and by extension Eden Sher, is becoming trying to me. I actually really like the character and actress, but the pedestal is becoming too high. See Criminal Minds for another forum deserted due to manic shipping.

[Danny Franks]

I haven't quite given up yet but I am very close to adding The Middle to shows for which I can no longer read the forums because the rabid fangurls who worship Sue Heck, and by extension Eden Sher, is becoming trying to me. I actually really like the character and actress, but the pedestal is becoming too high. See Criminal Minds for another forum deserted due to manic shipping.

 

That was one of the things that turned me off Castle, in the end. Quite apart from the increasingly bad writing, characters twisted to suit plots and the just overall limp, lifeless feel of it, the Stana Katic/Kate Beckett zealots were dreadful. Personal attacks on people for daring to say they weren't happy with things Beckett said or did, that pedestal they put her on was higher than Nelson's Column. There were even some who professed to not liking the title character at all, and only watching because of Beckett. Now honestly, if I don't like one of two main characters on a show, that had better be an incredibly good show, to keep me watching. Castle wasn't.

[Linderhill]

 

When it comes to TV we are all different and come from different places and sensibilities. Showrunners have their own ideas that might sound amazing to them all the way up to production and suck balls to audiences. Sometimes it is a matter of it sounding better in their head then it comes out on screen and sometimes ideas don't translate well to everyone. I may get it.....you may not. Doesn't make either of us right. My problem comes when flame wars happen and when throwing shade turns into throwing fire. Fire burns even the toughest ski

A perfect example of this is Steven Bochco's "Cop Rock." "Hill Street Blues" was a wonderful show, so were so many others.  And then he came up with 'Cop rock."

[Rick Kitchen]

Could not agree more with this entire post. I hate being told what to think and feel about issues that are complicated and multi-faceted as though there is only one "right" way to see things otherwise you are an asshole.

 

The only right way to see things is to treat the person the way they want to be treated, use the pronouns they want to use, and call them by the name they want to be called.

UO: I don't know Amy Schumer, don't care about Amy Schumer, have never seen anything Amy Schumer has been in, don't even know what show she's on.  What I do know is that the twenty or thirty different stories about her that I see on my Facebook feed every freakin' day means that I don't care to watch anything she's on.

[ToxicUnicorn]

I've never had a problem with this, actually.  I respect that they're actors, and they want to work from the scripts which they're given for any particular project, regardless of whether or not that project is based on a book, tv show, previous movie or whatever.  Some actors read the books, etc., and some don't, and I don't think either choice is being disrespectful to the source material or the fandom.

 

This raises some questions for me and also clarifies my issue with the Harry Potter examples.  I don't seem to have a problem with the Snape and Voldemort outcomes; I didn't find those performances disrespectful to the source material, so at least those cases worked out ok.  Maybe if I had had a problem with them, (assuming competent actors), I would direct my ire toward the writers who are doing the adapting.

 

I think my problem with Gambon and Dumbledore is that it was a glaring, jarring, inconsistency from the earlier portrayal.  That does bother me.   The fandom issue is more difficult.  I would like to say I'm a purist and feel like fandoms shouldn't matter, but I don't think that's what I think.

[meep.meep]

A perfect example of this is Steven Bochco's "Cop Rock." "Hill Street Blues" was a wonderful show, so were so many others.  And then he came up with 'Cop rock."

I hate to be *that* person, but Cop Rock was first.  Big big bomb.  I don't know how he ever got the funding for Hill Street Blues.

 

The reason actors may not watch someone else who has played a role is that they don't want to be accused of doing an imitation of the previous actor.  You want to find the character yourself, and that means in the text that you are given (the script), not in the original material.

 

My daughter was just in a production of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?   The one thing they did not do was watch the movie.

[Moose135]

I hate to be *that* person, but Cop Rock was first.  Big big bomb.  I don't know how he ever got the funding for Hill Street Blues.

 

Don't be that person, Meep...HSB aired 1981 - 1987, Cop Rock aired in 1990.

[Bastet]

meep.meep, you were probably thinking of NYPD Blue, which did come after Cop Rock.

 

While Cop Rock was a recent strike against him, he had Hill Street Blues and L.A. Law on his record.  I don’t remember how well Doogie Howser, M.D. did in the ratings or with critics, but it was on for several years so that would be in the success column as well heading into NYPD Blue.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Bastet

[ToxicUnicorn]

The reason actors may not watch someone else who has played a role is that they don't want to be accused of doing an imitation of the previous actor.  You want to find the character yourself, and that means in the text that you are given (the script), not in the original material.

My daughter was just in a production of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?   The one thing they did not do was watch the movie.

The difference that I see is Dumbledore2 was part of a continuation of a series of movies that everyone knew would be the defining vision for decades.  There was only going to be one series with the original cast of kids.  It feels to me as if Gambon was being selfish to ignore the continuity of the body of work for purely his own desires.  

 

I could maybe buy that Gambon could be excused from not watching Dumbledore1, if he felt he would be reduced to some kind of imitation.  However, not watching Dumbledore1 AND not reading the original source material to understand the warmer relationship between Harry and Dumbledore that persisted throughout the entire series of books and the first two movies, which millions of people had in their heads, was a pretty terrible choice, in my view.  It messed up both the continuity with the previous movie and with the books.  Maybe it's the director who should have held him to task.  I don't know.  All I know is I am unhappy with the outcome.

 

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf has the original text version, the original movie version, and countless stage versions, and each time it is self-contained.  I can understand why someone would and could start clean.  But there are a lot of differences between that situation and this particular one with Harry Potter.

 

I'll stop harping on it here and go looking for responses in the Harry Potter movies threads.  (If anyone wants to keep up this conversation, that is.  I'm game.  It's abstractly interesting to me, because usually I start out with an opinion and become more moderate, but in this case, I'm getting more entrenched.)

[Linderhill]

 

I hate to be *that* person, but Cop Rock was first.  Big big bomb.  I don't know how he ever got the funding for Hill Street Blues.

Moose135 and Bastet beat me to it.   Bochco had a looong career before NYPD Blue, which I never cared for.  It was one of those shows that "everyone" seemed to love and I was bored by.  Homicide: Life on the Streets was my preference.  I'm also old enough to remember the original NYPD from the sixties with Jack Warden, Frank Converse and Robert Hooks.  It was in syndication when I saw it and the episodes were only a half hour. 

[proserpina65]

I think my problem with Gambon and Dumbledore is that it was a glaring, jarring, inconsistency from the earlier portrayal.

 

Whereas I didn't even notice that there was significant difference in the portrayal at all.  Seemed like much the same character to me.  Oh well, different strokes and all.

Edited June 5, 2015 by proserpina65

[Pickles Aplenty]

I'm tired of hearing about Caitlyn Jenner and the Duggars.

[ganesh]

The Duggars covered up multiple sexual assaults, are claiming the victim role, and are massively hand waving religion as a white wash. These people deserve everything they get. 

[Pickles Aplenty]

 

The Duggars covered up multiple sexual assaults, are claiming the victim role, and are massively hand waving religion as a white wash. These people deserve everything they get.

I didn't say they didn't.  I'm just tired of going to the People site and seeing every other headline being about them.  I can see your point, though.

[applecrisp]

I didn't say they didn't.  I'm just tired of going to the People site and seeing every other headline being about them.  I can see your point, though.

Agree Bilina, some sites have about five stories on the Duggars alone.  They are first rate hypocrites and just plain creepy.  They deserve what they get.  I just worry that all of this press will just make the right harp on it more and it won't go away.  I want it to be gone.

 

The same goes for Caitlyn Jenner, who is so brave.  What about the kids with less resources and little support.  I am tired of this as well.  There has to be more important things going on.

[HalcyonDays]

The Duggars covered up multiple sexual assaults, are claiming the victim role, and are massively hand waving religion as a white wash. These people deserve everything they get. 

 

Except in this crappy messed up unfair world, the only thing they will get is more money and more fame. That's it.

 

I think my problem with Gambon and Dumbledore is that it was a glaring, jarring, inconsistency from the earlier portrayal.  That does bother me.   The fandom issue is more difficult.  I would like to say I'm a purist and feel like fandoms shouldn't matter, but I don't think that's what I think.

 

Hmm...I guess that means that my unpopular opinion is that I actually liked Gambon's Dumbledore. As weird as it sounds, I thought that the movies tended to soften the material from the books to appeal more to kids. Funny eh, since the books are about young kids, but there is so much more serious stuff that happens in the books, and they removed it from the films. The first one under the helm of Chris Columbus being the biggest example. I think that's why Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban was very popular and considered one of the best - he made it more gritty. HBP Part 2 I think tried to do that too, but over all the series was tamed compared to the events in the books, which I did not like.

[Chaos Theory]

The Duggars covered up multiple sexual assaults, are claiming the victim role, and are massively hand waving religion as a white wash. These people deserve everything they get.

This is why I hate this type of reality television program and think they all should be removed from the air. Contest shows are one thing but shows like The Duggars, Teen Mom and Honey Boo Boo parade the lowest common denominator as something to strive for. What exactly is the point of teen mom anyway? Is it to show how great getting pregnant at 16 is or to make fun of ignorant teenagers, either way we are making them rich. The same with the Duggars. Love them or hate them, you watch their show and you are putting money in their pocket.

Don't get me wrong I don't hate all reality television. Contest shows are fun and I do watch one and done shows like Intervention, hoarders and Beyond scared straight. Other then that I think reality TV is the bane of existence.