Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Chaos Theory]

There's a clear difference between watching a show with a critical eye and talking about it in the boards with others who are actually watching the show versus expecting every show to be the greatest show and when it's not, it's the worst show and harping on every little detail.

 

 

I don't think I have made this point before but if i am repeating myself I appogize.  But I have 3 types of shows that I enjoying watching. (at least broad categories of them).   Type 1 is more or less a "Prestige Show:,  A show that needs to make sense inside its own world and be well written and well acted.   Show like The Americans and Hannibal fit into this category  These are the shows I tend to be more critical about.  IF you  are going to write or act for a "Prestige" show you better bring your A Game.   Then there is Type 2 which are shows that are just fun to sit down and watch.  Honestly as long as they keep me entertained I tend to forgive plot holes and general stupidity.   Shows like the Blacklist and Pretty Little Liars first into this category   Then there is type 3 which are the shows that you l=can literally miss five or six episodes and not lose the plot at all.  These tend to be cop shows and half hour comedies.   Type three isn't bad its just the first show I will erase if I have too much on my DVR unwatched because honestly does it matter?  

 

I don't expect every show to be the greatest show ever but if you writing or acting in a great show then i expect great writing and great acting..

[DittyDotDot]

For me, it's all about having realistic expectations about what I'm watching. Not every show is going to be mind-blowing and all, but that doesn't mean they aren't good shows and good entertainment. I wouldn't sit down to watch and episode of Falling Skies with the expectation that it's going to be Mad Men. No, I expect Falling Skies to be somewhat conventional in it's look and cheesy in it's story and I wouldn't feel the need to pick it apart.

 

The problem for me is, I'm a completionist. There is a point where I feel like I've already invested enough time in the show so I must see it through to the end. So, it's those shows that have went on too long and the quality has shifted--and, I know I should quit, but just can't--that I tend to be harder on. I guess it's really just me being annoyed with myself more than show itself.

Edited October 6, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DeLurker]

I like Rumple and Regina on Once Upon a Time.  Their storylines have been crappy and nonsensical, but the I take great delight in Robert Carlyle's and Lana Parrilla's portrayal of them.

[Demented Daisy]

It's all about the genre of show, for me.  If a show is firmly rooted in reality -- and takes pride in that -- I cannot suspend my disbelief.  It's why I finally gave up on Bones.  The writing was on the wall with Pelant and just went downhill from there.  

 

Meanwhile, I still watch Criminal Minds because, despite some rocky episodes, the core of the show is still there.  It's not unrecognizable from the earlier seasons.  Characters have come and gone while others have evolved, but it never felt forced or unnatural to me.  Mileage varies, of course.  

 

Then there's Supernatural.  Chuck help me, Supernatural.  I should have given up as soon as Sam hit a dog, but I didn't.  Like Ditty (if you read the SPN threads, this should come as no surprise), I know I should quit, but I can't.  I keep hoping it'll get better, but it doesn't.  

 

Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not but... as long as there's still one thing I love about a show, I won't give up on it.

[proserpina65]

I made it 20 minutes with Bastard Executioner.  And then wiped my hands and wandered off.

 

I couldn't even start with it, because that's my specialist time period (Medieval History scholar here) and hate when it's poorly dramatized.  Which it almost always is.

 

There are things I hate/snark watch a bit, but very few because life is too short.  I do tend to stick with shows as long as there's still something I like about it, but even though I still like Alex Karev, I've finally cut the cord on Grey's Anatomy; it just isn't the show I enjoyed watching at all anymore.

[DittyDotDot]

I couldn't even start with it, because that's my specialist time period (Medieval History scholar here) and hate when it's poorly dramatized.  Which it almost always is.

 

Now I feel compelled to ask you if there is one show that has done the time period justice? I think I'd like to watch that show.

[proserpina65]

Now I feel compelled to ask you if there is one show that has done the time period justice? I think I'd like to watch that show.

Can't think of one off the top of my head.  Maybe something on PBS?  Must ponder further and report back.  :-)

[GHScorpiosRule]

Not sure if this is an unpopular opinion or not but... as long as there's still one thing I love about a show, I won't give up on it.

 

Yep. This was me with Smallville. It went downhill for me sometime after or maybe during its seventh season, but the prettiness and gorgeousness of Tom Welling kept me in until the bitter, bitter, bitter, bitter end. Even though his Clark didn't deserve to wear the cape.

Edited October 6, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[amensisterfriend]

Warning: Rant ahead :) 

 

I'm so weary of certain shows being dismissed as 'just fluff' when it's used to mean that therefore they are automatically undeserving of critical praise, fan affection or even basic respect as a decent show. Because, honestly, I LOVE fluff! I'm an unabashed fluff fan.  That doesn't mean I'm shallow or stupid (to be fair, I might well be both shallow and stupid, but my taste in TV shows shouldn't be used as the pivotal indicator!) I just tend to like TV that makes me smile rather than reach for the nearest razor blade. And I actually think it's HARD to make a consistently entertaining, enjoyable show---arguably sometimes even harder than yet another self-consciousy bleak angstfest. The problem is that because being entertaining/uplifting/enjoyable and being of 'high quality' are now often considered mutually exclusive, a lot of my once favorite shows have abandoned their strengths and sworn off joy and fun, grimly determined to become dark and edgy and often, IMO, turning out far worse in the process. 

[CoderLady]

Grimm is the first show that comes to mind fitting that description, but also the entire USA network lineup over the past 2 - 3 years.

[Minneapple]

Warning: Rant ahead :) 

 

I'm so weary of certain shows being dismissed as 'just fluff' when it's used to mean that therefore they are automatically undeserving of critical praise, fan affection or even basic respect as a decent show. Because, honestly, I LOVE fluff! I'm an unabashed fluff fan.  That doesn't mean I'm shallow or stupid (to be fair, I might well be both shallow and stupid, but my taste in TV shows shouldn't be used as the pivotal indicator!) I just tend to like TV that makes me smile rather than reach for the nearest razor blade. And I actually think it's HARD to make a consistently entertaining, enjoyable show---arguably sometimes even harder than yet another self-consciousy bleak angstfest. The problem is that because being entertaining/uplifting/enjoyable and being of 'high quality' are now often considered mutually exclusive, a lot of my once favorite shows have abandoned their strengths and sworn off joy and fun, grimly determined to become dark and edgy and often, IMO, turning out far worse in the process. 

I agree with this. I can't do shows like Breaking Bad or Walking Dead because they seem SO DEPRESSING. Everyone's in danger or dying or losing their humanity somehow. I think that's why I still like CW shows, even though I'm way WAY out of that target demo. I'd rather watch so-called guilty pleasure shows that are at least kind of happy or hopeful. 

 

A show like Jane the Virgin is quite well-loved by critics but is far from being grim or dark, however. So there's at least that. 

[ganesh]

To be fair, Breaking Bad had a lot more humor than you'd think. 

[UYI]

I think that's why I tend to prefer older sitcoms to modern shows--well, that, and my UO that I only tend to watch newer shows after they're off the air! The stuff that was on Nick at Nite fifteen years ago? THAT'S my kind of TV. Maybe not the deepest stuff on earth (All in the Family accepted, but fun. :)

 

Maybe I'm missing out on the so-called Golden Age of TV as a result, but a lot of the stuff that Nick at Nite or TV Land used to show 15 or 20 years were a part of a golden age of a sort, too.

 

Is it a UO that I absolutely LOVE thirtysomething and count it among my favorite shows ever?

[ganesh]

It depends what is meant by golden age. Overall, I'd say this is a golden age because there is year round original content that you can watch on multiple platforms. Filmmakers all say that tv is where the good stuff is. For sitcoms, maybe back in the 70s was better. In large part, the sitcoms tend to be just about the same, with watered down material with some exceptions. 

[ZuluQueenOfDwarves]

Maybe I'm missing out on the so-called Golden Age of TV as a result, but a lot of the stuff that Nick at Nite or TV Land used to show 15 or 20 years were a part of a golden age of a sort, too.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the Golden Age of tv is coming to a close. As a medium, tv was the underdog to film for so long that all these new platforms emerged and created new tv experiences that were really exciting, but as with all trends, its popularity became its undoing. Everything that was fresh and interesting was quickly subsumed by the flood of showrunners clogging up the new platforms and genres. This fall's crop is mostly (IMO) crap. I predict thorough saturation in another couple years, then a resurgence of fresh growth in another 5-7 years. Just my opinion, of course.

[spaceytraci1208]

To be fair, Breaking Bad had a lot more humor than you'd think.

Yeah, I think it started as kind of a dark comedy and just got darker/more intense as the story continued. It always kept me captivated though, and the transformation in the characters and overall tone of the show is one of the things I love about it.

[Kel Varnsen]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that the Golden Age of tv is coming to a close. As a medium, tv was the underdog to film for so long that all these new platforms emerged and created new tv experiences that were really exciting, but as with all trends, its popularity became its undoing. Everything that was fresh and interesting was quickly subsumed by the flood of showrunners clogging up the new platforms and genres. This fall's crop is mostly (IMO) crap. I predict thorough saturation in another couple years, then a resurgence of fresh growth in another 5-7 years. Just my opinion, of course.

My unpopular opinion is that I am tired of hearing about this being a golden age of TV. For one thing I don't thing the average TV show is much better than the average show was in any other decade. It is just the extremes got more extreme. The best written show on TV is probably better than the best written show in the 1970's but at the same time the worst show (pick any reality show on cable) is probably way worse than any show on in the 70's.

 

Plus can you really call it an age? If you assume that this "golden age" started with the Sopranos, it has been going on since 1999. Network TV has only been around since 1939, meaning this golden age has lasted for more than 20% of the entire lifespan of TV.

 

Personally I think this is just how TV is going to work from here on out. You are going to have your really bad crap and you are going to have your really well written, comedies and dramas. Do people thing the age is going to come to an end, and then everything on tv will go back to being police/lawyer shows or sitcoms with laugh tracks about families with overly witty kids or mismatched married couples?

[UYI]

 

 

Personally I think this is just how TV is going to work from here on out. You are going to have your really bad crap and you are going to have your really well written, comedies and dramas. Do people thing the age is going to come to an end, and then everything on tv will go back to being police/lawyer shows or sitcoms with laugh tracks about families with overly witty kids or mismatched married couples?

 

YMMV, but I kind of wish there were room for both.

[Julia]

There was some hardcore television happening in the seventies. I don't think it's clearcut that the average show today is better.

[Julia]

I couldn't even start with it, because that's my specialist time period (Medieval History scholar here) and hate when it's poorly dramatized.  Which it almost always is.

 

There are things I hate/snark watch a bit, but very few because life is too short.  I do tend to stick with shows as long as there's still something I like about it, but even though I still like Alex Karev, I've finally cut the cord on Grey's Anatomy; it just isn't the show I enjoyed watching at all anymore.

  

Now I feel compelled to ask you if there is one show that has done the time period justice? I think I'd like to watch that show.

  

Can't think of one off the top of my head.  Maybe something on PBS?  Must ponder further and report back.  :-)

Not Cadfael? That's disappointing.

[DeLurker]

Golden Age - given the explosion of cable, channels and programming I don't think I could call it an Apples to Apples comparison across the decades.  In the pre-cable days, your programming bucket was much smaller.

[Crim]

I can't watch sitcoms, usually not even one entire episode. Even if I find them funny, they don't hold my interest. In recent years, the only one I managed to watch more of was The B* in Apartment 23.

[DittyDotDot]

There was some hardcore television happening in the seventies. I don't think it's clearcut that the average show today is better.

 

I agree. I think there's a show here and there that stands out, but the vast majority of TV is much like it's always been. It's just that there's so many shows out there right now it's hard to see that they are mostly all replicas of other successes.

 

Oh bother! It seems I'm quite the Eeyore today. ;)

[ganesh]

There's probably the same percentage of great shows, which is not many, but I think there's a lot more just good shows than before, strictly by statistics. So, there's more of something for everyone. The problem is, it seems like everyone expects every show to be great, and if it's just good, then everyone says is totally sucks. It's fine to want very high quality tv, but there's limited resources to do that. Nothing is ever as great as it is or as bad as it is. 

[Shannon L.]

 

I'm so weary of certain shows being dismissed as 'just fluff' when it's used to mean that therefore they are automatically undeserving of critical praise, fan affection or even basic respect as a decent show. Because, honestly, I LOVE fluff! I'm an unabashed fluff fan.  That doesn't mean I'm shallow or stupid (to be fair, I might well be both shallow and stupid, but my taste in TV shows shouldn't be used as the pivotal indicator!) I just tend to like TV that makes me smile rather than reach for the nearest razor blade. And I actually think it's HARD to make a consistently entertaining, enjoyable show---arguably sometimes even harder than yet another self-consciousy bleak angstfest. The problem is that because being entertaining/uplifting/enjoyable and being of 'high quality' are now often considered mutually exclusive, a lot of my once favorite shows have abandoned their strengths and sworn off joy and fun, grimly determined to become dark and edgy and often, IMO, turning out far worse in the process.

 

 

There's probably the same percentage of great shows, which is not many, but I think there's a lot more just good shows than before, strictly by statistics. So, there's more of something for everyone. The problem is, it seems like everyone expects every show to be great, and if it's just good, then everyone says is totally sucks. It's fine to want very high quality tv, but there's limited resources to do that. Nothing is ever as great as it is or as bad as it is.

 

I like a mixture of both fluff and gritty in my tv viewing.  If I only watched one or the other, I'd go crazy.  But, in regards to the comments that I put in bold type, I'm willing to bet that if I listed everything I watch weekly throughout the year, I'd bet most people who crave that high quality programming would think that I was watching fluff and, therefore, shows that suck, in their opinion.  I said a number of pages ago that I don't need my comedies to be laugh out loud funny--just amusing or entertaining is enough for me. Same with my dramas--it doesn't have to be OMG! incredible! for me to love it.

[Kel Varnsen]

There was some hardcore television happening in the seventies. I don't think it's clearcut that the average show today is better.

Which is what i was trying to say. The really great stuff now is balanced out by the really terrible stuff that didn't exist either decades ago.

[amensisterfriend]

I said a number of pages ago that I don't need my comedies to be laugh out loud funny--just amusing or entertaining is enough for me

 

Same here!!! The vast majority of my favorite sitcoms fall into this this category. I hold the very UO of not finding Parks and Rec funny, for example, but I ended up feeling so invested in most of the characters and the friendships/relationships among them and the show's overall mood-boosting, heartwarming optimism that I really like it anyway.*(A related UO: Amy Poehler is far more grating than funny to me, and I actually think she does much better with relatively serious/emotional material than when she's trying to be funny.)   I feel the same way about The Middle, which I find relatable and engaging despite not thinking most of the humor is all that effective (though I liked earlier seasons much more than the most recent ones.) 

 

*A very unpopular opinion about Parks, and one that I only acquired after rewatching, is that I actually think S2 was the funniest season. I liked Ben and Chris a lot as individual characters, but not always the way they impacted the overall show----once they came on the scene, Parks seemed to become a gooey lovefest first and foremost rather than even attempting to be witty. 

Edited October 7, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[Kel Varnsen]

Golden Age - given the explosion of cable, channels and programming I don't think I could call it an Apples to Apples comparison across the decades. In the pre-cable days, your programming bucket was much smaller.

Not disagreeing with you except can you really call it an explosion when it has conservatively taken place over the last 16 years? If the golden age were a person it would be old enough to drive a car.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Kel Varnsen

[proserpina65]

    

Not Cadfael? That's disappointing.

Cadfael did it much, much better than most, although that was a slightly earlier period which is why I didn't mention it.  The characters are still too clean and attractive in appearance, and their lives less awful given the civil war raging around them, but hey, it's not a documentary.  The first 4 Cadfaels (the ones with Sean Pertwee as Hugh Beringar) did a pretty good job of capturing the political/social background of the books, but the subsequent ones did not.  Still, as medieval-based tv shows are concerned, they're pretty darn good.

Edited October 7, 2015 by proserpina65

[GHScorpiosRule]

Takes Deep Breath

 

Okay, here's my Unpopular Opinion about The Flash.

 

I guess I'm just not that deep, but I like and adore Barry/Flash. I think Grant Gustin makes him so adorkable. I know he was in Glee and that he can sing, so I want to hear Barry sing more than one line this season.  I don't think too much about why this plot point didn't work or what an utter ass Barry is or a jerk or just the scum of the Earth ( I don't think that he is), because when I watched Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, these kinds of questions were never asked or debated or argued over. Why it being a live action show suddenly generating such questions is beyond me. Like I prefaced above: I guess I'm just not that deep when it comes to shows based on comic book heroes/heroines.*  Though Gustin's Barry/Flash, really comes off as Wally West to me, since my limited knowledge of Barry is that he's more serious minded and the way this Barry is being portrayed just gives me Wally West vibes.

 

*Smallville is the exception for too many reasons to get into here.

Edited October 7, 2015 by GHScorpiosRule

[whatsatool]

Julie Christie and Alan Bates best Far From Madding Crowd; Keira and Matthew best Pride and Prejudice. Other period crushes are North and South England and The Winslow Boy. The best Emma, Wuthering Heights or Middlemarch have not been made yet. William Hurt makes a good Rochester on Jane Eyre and so does that guy with the curly hair.No good Jane Austen on PBS BBC. Not 19C but I loved A Town Called Alice. Both Poldarks smoldered and who cares about the plot.

Edited October 7, 2015 by whatsatool

[amensisterfriend]

Keira and Matthew best Pride and Prejudice

 

Ha---this is literally the only place in the world where I can confess to preferring that version of Pride and Pejudice to the far more beloved BBC miniseries and admit that I found Keira Knightly far closer to my vision of the spirited, lively Elizabeth (and I've never been much of a KK fan before or since.) The thing is, the miniseries is just so LONG---unnecessarily so, IMO. I find it's weirdly, erratically paced. I don't think Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle had all that much chemistry. I think the BBC version of Jane is woefully miscast. And, honestly, the movie version is just more charming, witty and engaging to me in addition to being more beautiful to look at. I know that the BBC version is more strictly faithful to the book and the one Jane Austen fans are supposed to prefer, but I just can't! 

Edited October 7, 2015 by amensisterfriend

[whatsatool]

Hear hear

[Demented Daisy]

Takes Deep Breath

 

Okay, here's my Unpopular Opinion about The Flash.

 

I guess I'm just not that deep, but I like and adore Barry/Flash. I think Grant Gustin makes him so adorkable. I know he was in Glee and that he can sing, so I want to hear Barry sing more than one line this season.  I don't think too much about why this plot point didn't work or what an utter ass Barry is or a jerk or just the scum of the Earth ( I don't think that he is), because when I watched Justice League/Justice League Unlimited, these kinds of questions were never asked or debated or argued over. Why it being a live action show suddenly generating such questions is beyond me. Like I prefaced above: I guess I'm just not that deep when it comes to shows based on comic book heroes/heroines.*  Though Gustin's Barry/Flash, really comes off as Wally West to me, since my limited knowledge of Barry is that he's more serious minded and the way this Barry is being portrayed just gives me Wally West vibes.

 

This is precisely why I don't read the Arrow or Flash threads.  I tried once, about a year ago, and immediately realized that my opinions were so against the tide that I would spend more time trying to defend my opinions than actually discussing and, you know, enjoying the show.

[Rick Kitchen]

^^^That's why I've stopped reading the OUAT threads.

[Danny Franks]

This is precisely why I don't read the Arrow or Flash threads.  I tried once, about a year ago, and immediately realized that my opinions were so against the tide that I would spend more time trying to defend my opinions than actually discussing and, you know, enjoying the show.

 

And I just stopped watching The Flash when I decided it was boring and bland, and that Gustin was a completely anaemic lead with little to no screen presence. Stopped watching Arrow too, when the writers tanked the whole show in the third season. But I still go back to snark about it once in a while, because the public relations for the show just give way too many golden opportunities to do so.

 

But when I stop watching shows, I tend to stop talking about them too. Quit Castle towards the end of season 6, and haven't been back in that forum. Quit Game of Thrones, and only occasionally go there to talk about the books. If there's nothing to enjoy, I'm not watching.

[Shannon L.]

 

This is precisely why I don't read the Arrow or Flash threads.  I tried once, about a year ago, and immediately realized that my opinions were so against the tide that I would spend more time trying to defend my opinions than actually discussing and, you know, enjoying the show.

For me, it's Arrow, Blacklist and Sleepy Hollow.  I only had to read one page each to know that I wouldn't fit in there.  I haven't even bothered with Grimm, because I have a feeling it would be the same.

 

 

But when I stop watching shows, I tend to stop talking about them too. Quit Castle towards the end of season 6, and haven't been back in that forum. Quit Game of Thrones, and only occasionally go there to talk about the books. If there's nothing to enjoy, I'm not watching.

Yeah, sometimes I'll stop in a thread to see what a particular character is up to or how a storyline panned out, but for the most part, when I'm done, I'm done.  However, I tend to stick with it for a long time before finally giving up.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Shannon L.

[Misslindsey]

I liked season three of Arrow. It had a lot of Thea/Oliver, which is probably my favorite relationship on the show. I always liked Oliver's family relationships with Thea and Moira. I also, am not a fan of both, Laurel and Felicity. I did not hate Ray either.

[Crim]

I tend to "soft-drop" shows: I stop watching the episodes as they air and just check the forum and/or sites to see where things are going. It's easier than deciding to outright call it quits, especially mid-season. I only go to threads for these shows I might pick up again. This is partially because, when I quit a show, I soon forget about it.

 

I tried once, about a year ago, and immediately realized that my opinions were so against the tide that I would spend more time trying to defend my opinions than actually discussing and, you know, enjoying the show.

While the opinions on TVD back on TWOP were mixed, the ranting was so heated (and the show got so bad) that I stopped reading even though my opinions were nowhere near singular. Then again, my interest in the show itself had dwindled and I soon quit watching. I also stopped going to the Fringe threads in the later seasons because the Walter and Peter love had completely taken over. It wasn't that that I would have posted dissenting opinions, it was more than that: it felt that we were watching different shows and there was no point in talking.

 

Also, and I've only realized this pretty recently, there are shows I watch but just don't read their threads and pretty much never have.

 

I've seen the love for Arrow, but I watched the first 1 or 2 episodes, found it/them dreadful and could never go back. Didn't try The Flash at all.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Crim

[tribeca]

I think Susan Lucci is a terrible actor.  I was never surprised when she didn't win an Emmy.

[tomatoflyer]

I watch arrow but not the flash - I watched the first half of the first season, but it was so predictable and the characters so bland. Also I have Felicity, and always have.

[applecrisp]

I am not finding any new good shows.  So far Grandfathered is mildly amusing. I have hopes for The Last Kingdom.  Can anyone recommend a new show?  Right now I like sitcoms The Middle and  The Goldbergs, Grimm, Sleepy Hollow and OUAT and Fargo and Manhattan.  Thanks in advance.

[Crim]

I have found no good new shows this season. It's actually quite of an event in itself. Still waiting for Jessica Jones, Ash Vs. Evil Dead, Into the Badlands, and Flesh and Bone, but they are all in November.

[walnutqueen]

I am not finding any new good shows.  So far Grandfathered is mildly amusing. I have hopes for The Last Kingdom.  Can anyone recommend a new show?  Right now I like sitcoms The Middle and  The Goldbergs, Grimm, Sleepy Hollow and OUAT and Fargo and Manhattan.  Thanks in advance.

 

I'm having the same problem - watching some of the new fall shows makes me sigh, heavily.  Someone on one of the crime forums recommended The Enfield Haunting, and I've only seen one episode, but I am at least a tiny bit intrigued.  I haven't checked out The Last Kingdom or Manhattan - hope I'm not missing too much; and have given up on all the other shows you mentioned except for Fargo.  One of my favorite returning shows is The People's Couch - apparently I prefer watching other people watching TeeVee shows, so I don't have to!  :-)

[mansonlamps]

I like Grandfathered, Life in Pieces and The Grinder, so all comedies which really isn't normally my thing.  I am typically all about a good procedural but haven't liked any of the new ones I've watched.

[Shannon L.]

The only new shows I've tried this year are The Muppets and Code Black.  I'm enjoying them both.  I really wasn't sure The Muppets were going to work, but they had me from the first scene of the first show.  Like most comedies, there have been scenes that haven't really worked, but the show as a whole?  They've still got it. 

 

Speaking of Code Black:  I've read a number of posts about how dull and cliched it was.  My UO is that unless it's a fantasy/sci-fi type show where you can let your imagination run wild, I don't mind cliches as long as they are written well and the actors can pull them off (although, I'm quite lenient on acting--I don't care if they are great.  Just good is fine with me).  I mean, cliches have become just that because they've been proven to work and I don't know how original you can get with  shows based on reality.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Shannon L.

[DearEvette]

It will probably be cancelled soon, this is probably academic at this point, but I think Blood and Oil is not that terrible.  Three episodes in I have decided I can't take the stupidity that is Quantico but the third episode of Blood and Oil had some teeth to it and suddenly made the show seem sharper & smarter.

[Crim]

UO: A season with no watchable new shows is not a bad thing at all. There are older shows to (re)watch and plenty of movies. Except for the weirdness of not having a weekly schedule of episodes, I don't actually notice the absence of new shows to watch.

[joelene]

UO: A season with no watchable new shows is not a bad thing at all. There are older shows to (re)watch and plenty of movies. Except for the weirdness of not having a weekly schedule of episodes, I don't actually notice the absence of new shows to watch.

.

Agreed. I'm actually happy there doesn't seem to be anything new to watch. I'm gonna try out My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (I only read about it yesterday but saw, like, five positive reviews in the span of and hour) but I think that's the only one. I love rewatching old, great shows. I'm watching Six Feet Under as I type.

Edited October 13, 2015 by joelene

[ribboninthesky1]

UO: A season with no watchable new shows is not a bad thing at all. There are older shows to (re)watch and plenty of movies. Except for the weirdness of not having a weekly schedule of episodes, I don't actually notice the absence of new shows to watch.

 

Thirded! I've already confessed to watching less TV than I used to. I believe there's so much content out there, perhaps too much, that I'm fine with discovering existing shows, or watching movies. 

 

My UO is that unless it's a fantasy/sci-fi type show where you can let your imagination run wild, I don't mind cliches as long as they are written well and the actors can pull them off (although, I'm quite lenient on acting--I don't care if they are great.  Just good is fine with me).  I mean, cliches have become just that because they've been proven to work and I don't know how original you can get with  shows based on reality.

 

Good point. There's not much new you can do on TV, so it's a matter of how well a show can execute their premise plus cast chemistry.