Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Misslindsey]

 

I feel like I might have to hide after that I say this, but: my SNL UO is that I legitimately like both Colin Jost and Michael Che behind the update desk.  I think they've worked out the kinks and are gelling together, and I don't see the "animosity" between the two that some seem to see.  I actually see two guys that crack each other up, and feel comfortable around each other to rib each other over bad jokes.

I am so glad I found someone else who likes Jost and Che. I enjoy them both and never saw whatever "animosity" that some people see. I liked their chemistry. They seem to be having a good time.

 

One SNL UO that I have is that I still have not warmed up to Cecily Strong. I do not love any of her characters, especially Girl at a Party. 

 

A really big SNL UO is that I do not mind Kristen Wiig. I like some of her characters and don't like others. I really like Gilly, Dooneese, and The Californians (I enjoy everyone in The Californians).

 

An Empire UO is that I lost interest halfway through the first season, and I was over Cookie long before that.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Misslindsey

[Silverglitter]

Gilligan's Island: The Professor is waaayyyyy too old for Mary Ann. Even if they were closer in age, he goes better with Ginger and her with Gilligan anyway, imo.

 

It's probably a bit hypocritical of me considering I'm a Rose/Ten shipper and I always kinda liked Monica/Richard, but big age differences really bother me. I guess I've seen one too many of my classmates dating my uncles that it sufficiently creeps me the heck out.

[mansonlamps]

Gilligan's Island: The Professor is waaayyyyy too old for Mary Ann. Even if they were closer in age, he goes better with Ginger and her with Gilligan anyway, imo.

It's probably a bit hypocritical of me considering I'm a Rose/Ten shipper and I always kinda liked Monica/Richard, but big age differences really bother me. I guess I've seen one too many of my classmates dating my uncles that it sufficiently creeps me the heck out.

Gotta ask. Is this a metaphor or are you talking about your actual uncles? Because eeww. I had one good friend in high school that dated a 34 year old when she was 17, totally with her mother's blessing, gross. Surprise, he was using her for sex and blew her off the minute she wanted more! But other than that I don't really know of any couples with that huge of an age difference. In fact, of the two that I do know the wife is older than the husband by 10 years.

[Silverglitter]

Gotta ask. Is this a metaphor or are you talking about your actual uncles? Because eeww. I had one good friend in high school that dated a 34 year old when she was 17, totally with her mother's blessing, gross. Surprise, he was using her for sex and blew her off the minute she wanted more! But other than that I don't really know of any couples with that huge of an age difference. In fact, of the two that I do know the wife is older than the husband by 10 years.

Actual uncles. One uncle is married to a girl that was 2 years ahead of me in school. I was never friends with her or anything and I've never been particularly close to that uncle so it's easier to be more 'whatever' about it.

 

Last summer, another uncle was dating one of my real close friends. OMG, it was just ewwww to me. I tried to be okay about it because she's such a good friend, so I tried to be accepting and non-judgmental (I try to be that way for the most part in my life anyway, but things change when it's someone close to you, ya know?), but it was really difficult. Thankfully, it didn't last long.

 

The worst age difference I can think of is this girl I went to school with. She was in my grade and maybe a few years after high school, she married and had kids with this old man. And when I say old, I mean he is literally old enough to be our grandfather.

[ganesh]

I don't find sex scenes to be gratuitous. Unless that's not an UO, but it seems like on every show there's always 'zomg teh secks sttttooopppppp.' I like looking at naked people and I like watching people having sex. Maybe that's a little unpopular, but given the near infinite amount of violence on tv, a few naked sweaty bodies is nbd to me. The 'sexposition' on Game of Thrones is hilarious.  

 

If one needs to literally FF through sex scenes, I don't think that's the show's problem.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't find sex scenes to be gratuitous. Unless that's not an UO, but it seems like on every show there's always 'zomg teh secks sttttooopppppp.' I like looking at naked people and I like watching people having sex. Maybe that's a little unpopular, but given the near infinite amount of violence on tv, a few naked sweaty bodies is nbd to me. The 'sexposition' on Game of Thrones is hilarious.  

 

If one needs to literally FF through sex scenes, I don't think that's the show's problem.

 

There is a film called "This Film is Not Yet Rated"  It is one of the few documentaries I have watched.  Basically it says that sex garners a higher MPA rating then violence does.    People have a higher tolerance for extreme violence.  Basically a guy can go on a bloody rampage in a movie and that would be cool but show some boob.....and people will go nuts.  

Edited June 21, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[ganesh]

I watched it. The people that rate the movies are like this total cabal. 

[ribboninthesky1]

I don't find sex scenes to be gratuitous. Unless that's not an UO, but it seems like on every show there's always 'zomg teh secks sttttooopppppp.' I like looking at naked people and I like watching people having sex. Maybe that's a little unpopular, but given the near infinite amount of violence on tv, a few naked sweaty bodies is nbd to me. The 'sexposition' on Game of Thrones is hilarious.  

 

If one needs to literally FF through sex scenes, I don't think that's the show's problem.

 

I'll never understand the discomfort regarding sex on TV, especially since it's commented on so much more than violence (unless said violence is sexual). A penis or breasts or vagina vs a bullet to the head or someone getting the shit beaten out of them? Hmmm, let me think....

 

I do agree with the general sentiment of female nudity shown much more than male nudity, but two consenting adults having sex isn't gross or disturbing to me. And to be clear, I'm thinking within the context of two actors playing characters on TV, not the exploitative and abusive nature of the sex work/porn industry or the Hollywood casting couch. 

 

And speaking of nudity, here's a pretty UPO: I think male bodies are just attractive as female.  I often read things akin to, "men look weird naked...down there" and I always wonder what these people are seeing. In truth, if there was a choice to make, I'd prefer to see a naked man than woman.  Maybe that's just the heterosexual female in me. All I'm saying is, it ain't just men who are "visual."  

[AshleyN]

There is a film called "This Film is Not Yet Rated"  It is one of the few documentaries I have watched.  Basically it says that sex garners a higher MPA rating then violence does.    People have a higher tolerance for extreme violence.  Basically a guy can go on a bloody rampage in a movie and that would be cool but show some boob.....and people will go nuts.  

One of my favourite stories about the ridiculous double standard when it comes to sex and violence comes from Bryan Fuller, talking about an early episode of Hannibal:

 

"My favorite time, because it's such a cute anecdote, was when we had this episode 'Coquilles,'  where we had a kiler who was creating angels that would watch over him while he slept. So we had two people who were nude, and we saw their butt cracks. They were flayed open, they were cracked in many ways. And NBC said we couldn't show that shot, which was this great sort of cinematic shot. 'Why? Because of the exposed spine and ribs and muscle tissue?' And they were like, 'No, we see their butt cracks.' And I said, 'What if we filled the butt cracks with blood so we couldn't see the cracks?' And they said okay."

If for some strange reason anyone wants to see the final image that was "okay", here it is (Warning: SUPER gruesome and NSFW). I love that show, but anyone who's ever watched it would know that a buttcrack would have been pretty much the least traumatizing image to ever appear on it.

[truthaboutluv]

For me personally, I don't think any simple display of sex or violence is something to freak out about and automatically makes it gratuitous. That being said, I do think there have been many times where shows and movies have been guilty of being gratuitous with both. I have no issues with sex because it is simply a part of life and I have no issue with violence. But if I'm watching a show and a movie and I get the feeling either of these things are there solely for the purpose of being shocking and "oh look how daring and bold we are", then to me its gratuitous and then I just find myself rolling my eyes. Basically for me it's this - if it adds nothing to the story other than just to be there, then it's pointless. 

 

eta: I definitely agree about the double standards, particularly on network television, with nudity/sex versus violence. Although I will say in the case of Hannibal, even that violence pushes it for network television which is why they're on at 10 p.m . at night and I remember a season ago, there was an episode where Hannibal gave a guy hallucinogenic drugs that made him cut off the skin of his face and feed it to dogs. That scene was shot very, very dark where you couldn't actually see what he was doing but had more the suggestion because I'm guessing the networks said no and that's way too violent and disturbing for television even at 10 p.m. 

Edited June 21, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Danny Franks]

I think sex on screen is fine, for the most part. Gratuitous isn't really a problem, because you're supposed to give your audience stuff they'll like. Yes, attractive naked people are nice to look at, seeing boobs or someone's arse or dick isn't something that should freak anyone out, we've all got one set of genitals or the other. But I think it's better when the sex is earned, when a storyline has built up to it and the audience is invested in the couple on screen. Sadly, those sex scenes are usually the ones that aren't shown.

 

It's not like you even need nudity to create a fantastic, steamy, erotic sex scene. Especially not when it's two characters you care about, and a relationship you care about.

 

But the idea that violence is that much more accepted and shown is something that has always disturbed me a little. The idea that someone would be happier watching a murder occur on screen than watching two people have sex? I just don't get how some people's minds work. It's not that I dislike violence (though I'm squeamish about gore, and don't understand the appeal), and it has its place. But it seems like some parents would be happy to let their kid watch, for example the first Terminator movie, except for the bit where Sarah and Kyle have sex.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Danny Franks

[Chaos Theory]

This goes all the way back to the 1930s Hays Code although there were rules about the application of violence on the screen .A show like Dexter or Breaking Bad would never have been permitted in Hays Code America because of "presenting crime in such a way to throw sympathy on the criminal." The major reason for it was to keep sex off the screen.

The Hays code is one of the reasons why I am against the out right censoring of a show. If you don't like it don't watch it. It won't get the ratings and it will get canceled. Let ratings and networks decide not the MPA.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[tribeca]

My UO

Don't find Saturday Night Live funny and haven't in many years.

[ganesh]

I don't think it's the sex per se, there's just not a lot of casual nudity on tv in general. It's like people immediately get up and put on a full set of clothes. 

[Anna Yolei]

My UO

Don't find Saturday Night Live funny and haven't in many years.

Me, neither. I didn't care for it even when my friends were going apeshit for Will Ferrell in the early 2000s. I was far more of a MadTV guy before Bobby Lee's overexposure ruined that.

[ribboninthesky1]

For my part, I've never denied that sex scenes can be gratuitous. I do believe that sex is complained about as such much more often than violence, though.  

 

Plus, gratuitous and disturbing aren't synonymous to me.  Even if one or both serve the story or otherwise earned, I'm always gonna be disturbed by violence, which is my ultimate point in all this.  Serving the story doesn't make seeing violence less disturbing, in my case. 

[Sandman87]

My UO

Don't find Saturday Night Live funny and haven't in many years.

SNL hasn't been funny for me since about 1980. Not coincidentally that's about when Lorne Michaels left for a few years and they stopped recruiting former National Lampoon talent for cast and writers.

[andromeda331]

Stewart says;  "If I say a tomato is a vegetable, I'm wrong.  If I say it's a suspension bridge, I'm very very wrong."

 

I love this comment Stewart made and use it often.

 

My UO when it comes to violence when its people I'm generally not bother matter how gross or gruesome it is. Now when its animal its different story. I have no idea why. I can watch a serial killer chopping up bodies and nothing or just roll my eyes and go its a show, a character going after an animal with a gun or knife and I have to change the channel until the scene is over and I want the cat or dog murderer to die a horrible death. Even just threatening to harm an animal and I want blood. 

[ganesh]

Those of us who watched the awful Dig miniseries on USA network spent most of the time hoping the cow made it to freedom at the end. 

[Gudzilla]

My UO on the female vs male nudity is with the argument I've seen in a few places that usually goes " a male butt does not equal boobs" this is usually used to imply that a penis shot would be equal to them. My first problem is that men don't really have a boob equivalent, and second the penis shot equivalent is the even more rare vagina shot.*

My brand new "pubic hair does not equal vagina" theory proves this.**

 

 

 

* Of course there are "special" movies available for those who want to see all these things. ;) 

** I am not a crackpot.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Gudzilla

[Shannon L.]

 

My brand new "pubic hair does not equal vagina" theory proves this.**

Yes, but haven't you heard in multiple places that everything down there is a "vagina".  *eyeroll*  Nudity and sex doesn't bother me, but the context in which it is shown does.  Speaking of which, here's my UO opinion for the day:  Hubby brought home Game of Thrones, Season 1 yesterday.  He knows that I have trouble with watching rape, incest and cruelty to children.  What do I get in the first episode?  All freakin' three. But, it's supposed to be such a great show! It is gorgeous--the cinematography, the costumes, the sets/locations....but, from what I gather, there's a lot of rape and incest at least and I don't know if I can stomach it. I'll keep watching a few episodes because he really wants to watch it, so maybe I'll end up getting drawn in, but the first episode didn't impress me at all.

[FormerMod-a1]

I almost didn't watch any more Game of Thrones after the first ep.  Even knowing what to expect, my thoughts were "Wow.  That was a lot of rape....  really a lot of rape."  I did watch the 2nd and 3rd eps and next thing I knew, 3 weeks later, I had binged all 4 seasons.  (There were only 4 at the time).  So it did end up hooking me and I watched this last season live.

[VanillaBear85]

My UO

Don't find Saturday Night Live funny and haven't in many years.

I have never made it through a full episode. I found it awkward, uncomfortable, and unfunny. I have watched clips that I found humorous, but SNL has never appealed to me.

[janie jones]

But, it's supposed to be such a great show! It is gorgeous--the cinematography, the costumes, the sets/locations..

Then I guess I have an UO, which is that the sets on Game of Thrones are crappy.  Every time I've watched it, I've had the sense that I'm looking at a set, and three feet away is some guy holding a microphone.

Edited June 23, 2015 by janie jones

[ganesh]

I'm already over the constant comparisons of True Detective to last season and how "cliche and predictable it is." After one hour of television. 

[truthaboutluv]

I'm already over the constant comparisons of True Detective to last season and how "cliche and predictable it is." After one hour of television. 

 

That's not surprising because reading professional reviews as well as discussion boards, I felt some came in predisposed to dislike the season because in their eyes, there is no way these actors would top what Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson did. Funny thing, my unpopular opinion is that I found the first season of True Detective VASTLY overrated. It was great but by no means the amazing show some seemed to make it out to be and I was thrilled when Bryan Cranston won the Emmy over Matthew because he deserved it in my opinion. 

[ganesh]

That's the problem we've been saying with tv watching. Just anecdotal, there were more comments on the actors' other roles and the comparison from this one hour of tv to the entire 8 of last season than there were about the actual tv program that just aired. 

 

It's the same as S1 in that it's an interested murder mystery. Other than that, it's its own show. If TPTBs play fair with me, I'll play fair with them. 

[UYI]

Yes, but haven't you heard in multiple places that everything down there is a "vagina".  *eyeroll*  Nudity and sex doesn't bother me, but the context in which it is shown does.  Speaking of which, here's my UO opinion for the day:  Hubby brought home Game of Thrones, Season 1 yesterday.  He knows that I have trouble with watching rape, incest and cruelty to children.  What do I get in the first episode?  All freakin' three. But, it's supposed to be such a great show! It is gorgeous--the cinematography, the costumes, the sets/locations....but, from what I gather, there's a lot of rape and incest at least and I don't know if I can stomach it. I'll keep watching a few episodes because he really wants to watch it, so maybe I'll end up getting drawn in, but the first episode didn't impress me at all.

 

I couldn't make it past the first episode; my mom and sister are obsessed with it, binge-watching it as much as possible. I might try it again someday, but right now, nope, not interested. And I'm a horror movie fan; I should be able to stomach anything! ;)

[UYI]

Here's a possible UO:

 

I have always, always liked Pamela Anderson. There is something about her that suggests that she's smarter than a lot of people would give her credit for due to her association with Playboy, and she's always come across as a very nice person in interviews, with a great sense of humor. She's okay in my book. 

[Neurochick]

I liked the first episode of this season's True Detective better than the first episode of last season's True Detective.  Then again I like Colin Farrell.

[proserpina65]

I almost didn't watch any more Game of Thrones after the first ep.  Even knowing what to expect, my thoughts were "Wow.  That was a lot of rape....  really a lot of rape."

 

It's been awhile since I've seen season 1, but the only rape I remember in the first episode was Dany's wedding night.  The dancers at the wedding seemed to be willing participants to me.  But I might be forgetting something.

[ribboninthesky1]

I liked the first episode of this season's True Detective better than the first episode of last season's True Detective.  Then again I like Colin Farrell.

 

I couldn't get through the first season of True Detective because of McConaughey.  And I've been hesitant to tune into season 2, despite liking Farrell and McAdams.  Maybe I'll give it a shot.      

 

That's the problem we've been saying with tv watching. Just anecdotal, there were more comments on the actors' other roles and the comparison from this one hour of tv to the entire 8 of last season than there were about the actual tv program that just aired. 

 

This reminds me of the flip side of that coin - declarations of something being the "best thing on TV" after one or two episodes. 

[LydiaMoon1]

I almost didn't watch any more Game of Thrones after the first ep.

 

I didn't watch Game of Thrones any more after the first ep.  It's a decision I don't regret.

[ganesh]

Pamela Anderson was straight up funny on her show in the 90s.

 

It's been awhile since I've seen season 1, but the only rape I remember in the first episode was Dany's wedding night.  The dancers at the wedding seemed to be willing participants to me.  But I might be forgetting something.

 

Just in general: I think the reports of rape on Game of Thrones is not indicative of the actual content of the show. The treatment of women on the show is terrible, deplorable, and disgusting. I wonder if something is wrong with GRRM. They're treated as property, much like the real-life medieval culture from which he is appropriating for the books. It's certainly not for everyone. This is a show that you're either going to watch or not after the first episode. Most shows aren't like that. 

 

I wonder though, if the piling on of GOT in general, mainly from my FB feed, is indicative more of the drudgery of this season than on the overall story that's being told. I think there's a lot of viewer fatigue. When Jon Snow fought the White Walker everyone was gushing about how cool it was. Now no one likes the show because of the finale. I think the show has played rather fair with the audience since the start, so it's not like the recent events came out of nowhere.

 

This reminds me of the flip side of that coin - declarations of something being the "best thing on TV" after one or two episodes.

 

This is the problem with GOT I think. The show you want, isn't the show that's necessarily being aired. Which goes to my initial point that actually watching a show is not the primary reason to watch a show. 

 

This would be such a great social science dissertation, I swear. 

[selkie]

Here's a possible UO:

 

I have always, always liked Pamela Anderson. There is something about her that suggests that she's smarter than a lot of people would give her credit for due to her association with Playboy, and she's always come across as a very nice person in interviews, with a great sense of humor. She's okay in my book. 

 

 

I never made it more than five minutes into an episode of Baywatch, but loved her in V.I.P. which she coproduced and starred in. She was definitely in on the joke with that show, which was supposed to be silly camp humor. There are people out there who thought it was supposed to be serious drama, which I really don't get.

[ganesh]

VIP. That's the show I meant. 

[callie lee 29]

 

I have always, always liked Pamela Anderson. There is something about her that suggests that she's smarter than a lot of people would give her credit for due to her association with Playboy, and she's always come across as a very nice person in interviews, with a great sense of humor. She's okay in my book.

I've always liked her too!  My problem with Baywatch was Hasselhoff, not her. And VIP was awesome. She always came across as a hell of a lot more savvy than she got credit for and she just seems like she would be a fun person to go to dinner with, just hang.

[ParadoxLost]

I wonder though, if the piling on of GOT in general, mainly from my FB feed, is indicative more of the drudgery of this season than on the overall story that's being told. I think there's a lot of viewer fatigue. When Jon Snow fought the White Walker everyone was gushing about how cool it was. Now no one likes the show because of the finale. I think the show has played rather fair with the audience since the start, so it's not like the recent events came out of nowhere.

 

Fatigue is as good a word as any.  I think GoT reached its tipping point in the finale.  As much as the show has played "fair" there were too many Starks running around and "the North Remembers" was enough that a large segment of viewers likely never bought that subverting the 'good guy always wins' trope was a real possibility.  Not in the end..  Jon was supposed to pick up the mantle and avenge Ned/Cat/Robb.  Now there is no convincing person to take up that mantle left.  So we have what the show always warned us about and its not going over well.

 

The simple example I'll give is that the show has never appeared in the "Psychopathic TV Landscape" thread.

[kathyk24]

I don't care about Shark Week and am sick of all the ads for it.

[Julia]

I have no idea what Jeremy Clarkson did. I don't really care. I just wish whatever it was, it was serious enough to make BBC America cancel the reruns of Top Gear too. 

[Shannon L.]

 

I don't care about Shark Week and am sick of all the ads for it.

The first year they did it was fun, but it got ridiculous and repetitive quickly.

[proserpina65]

I have no idea what Jeremy Clarkson did. I don't really care. I just wish whatever it was, it was serious enough to make BBC America cancel the reruns of Top Gear too. 

I love Top Gear and used to watch it religiously.  And I have no intention of watching any seasons without Jezza, Captain Slow and the Hamster, because they are the show as far as I'm concerned.  But I certainly agree that BBC America runs it too damned much.

 

Of course, BBC America runs all their reality shows too damned much.  But then I remember when they ran a variety of shows, and not just Top Gear and re-runs of the shitty American Kitchen Nightmares episodes.  What I wouldn't give for Changing Rooms, Ground Force, or a re-run of Footballers' Wives.

The first year they did it was fun, but it got ridiculous and repetitive quickly.

I used to love Shark Week, but the last time it was worth watching was the year they ran the special about the USS Indianapolis.

[merylinkid]

Shark week is boring.   Oooh look another documentary about sharks.   When they try to spice it up with a faux documentary everyone gets their panties in a knot.

 

Try living in the county where Disco is headquartered.   Not only do they put a damn shark on their building, but everyone covers it likes its an amazing thing.   The only plus side to having Disco here (besides jobs, jobs are good) is when the Deadliest Catch Captains sued.   I thought I might see them around the courthouse, but alas, it settled before they had to show up for anything.

[proserpina65]

Shark week is boring.   Oooh look another documentary about sharks.   When they try to spice it up with a faux documentary everyone gets their panties in a knot.

 

If they'd made it obvious that it was a faux documentary, no one would've gotten upset; it's the fact that they tried to pretend it was real (except in the fine print in the closing credits) which was the problem.  Heck, some fictional shark-related movies (clearly labelled as such) would be entertaining.  Discovery just needs to face it: there's not enough new info out there about sharks right now to justify a whole week of shows.  But, ratings!

 

I feel your pain about living near their headquarters.

[ByTor]

Here's a possible UO:

 

I have always, always liked Pamela Anderson.

Not only have I always liked her, I always liked Baywatch, Hasselhoff be damned!  Although Summer (Nicole Eggert) was my favorite character.

[Gudzilla]

How's this UO.. I'm looking forward to the new season of Under The Dome...... I'm not even kidding.

[ChaseMCP]

I wonder though, if the piling on of GOT in general, mainly from my FB feed, is indicative more of the drudgery of this season than on the overall story that's being told. I think there's a lot of viewer fatigue. When Jon Snow fought the White Walker everyone was gushing about how cool it was. Now no one likes the show because of the finale. I think the show has played rather fair with the audience since the start, so it's not like the recent events came out of nowhere.

 

This is the problem with GOT I think. The show you want, isn't the show that's necessarily being aired. Which goes to my initial point that actually watching a show is not the primary reason to watch a show. 

 

This would be such a great social science dissertation, I swear. 

 

In my experience, what left me extra down at the end of this season is that since there are only about 2 seasons left (3 at the most) I've suddenly realized that the show has to start building up to the end. Therefore, all of my favorite characters who I said years ago "I know by the end of the series they'll most likely be dead, but I'll cope then" will probably start dying next year, which was a bit of a "oh shit" moment that crept up on me.

 

That reminds me, UO about GoT is that deciding to catch up on the books while the show is still airing has proven to be one of the worst mistakes I've made. Not because the show is changing from the books, but because nobody will let you forget it. It's made me happy that I hadn't read the LotR books when I saw the movies, because I was able to appreciate the movies for what they were, and then later appreciate the books for what they were. True it's different with the GoT books still needing to come out, but it's made it exhausting to be open-minded in the fandom on any site because so many readers are so....emphatic with their thoughts. In fact, I've decided to just take a complete break from everything GoT related in the hopes that it'll calm down over the next few months. The show is exhausting enough - being part of the fandom shouldn't be.

[ganesh]

The GOT books don't sound appealing to me. An hour a week is ok for me, but I can't imagine having to read all of that. I've read two fantasy book series that sprawled out over 20+ years each. It wasn't worth it.

 

If there's any a show that people should actually watch and not flock to social media to see what the actors have to say, it's this one. 

[sweetcookieface]

I have what I think is a very unpopular Sopranos opinion: I don't hate AJ. Quite the contrary, I find the character intriguing and really enjoy his plots, especially in Season 6b. I actually think Rob Iler did a brilliant job, and managed to perfectly capture a very specific type of privileged teenage angst in ways that were at turns hilarious and moving. I was far more interested in AJ than Meadow, and thought Rob Iler was a stronger actor than Jamie Lynn Sigler as well. (To be fair, some of that was Meadow's know-it-all/sanctimonious tone, which I recognize was how the character was scripted.)

[Sandman87]

Of course, BBC America runs all their reality shows too damned much.  But then I remember when they ran a variety of shows, and not just Top Gear and re-runs of the shitty American Kitchen Nightmares episodes.  What I wouldn't give for Changing Rooms, Ground Force, or a re-run of Footballers' Wives.

Sing it! GF and CR were great. And while we're wishing for things we won't get, maybe they could run Brilliant! and The League of Gentlemen again, instead of all those Star Trek TNG marathons.