Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[cynic]

Sleepy Hollow UO's:

I liked Hawley for the most part. I just didn't like him usurping Jenny's role. If his character had come back and functioned like Joe does, I would have no problem with him at all. I would actually prefer him to Joe.

I like Orlando Jones, but don't really miss him. I felt like he was given too much to do and should've stayed in a more background Skinner-type role.

I don't mind Zoe. She's no Caroline, but she's fine (except for her giant picture texts).

I think season 3, while being competently written, is boring and I don't like the FBI aspects of it. I thought the Glades was boring too, so maybe I just don't like Clifton Campbell's style of storytelling.

While Shannon Sossamon has done a great job with what she's been given, I don't like the Pandora storyline. I preferred the Judeo-Christian mythology and think introducing the Greek god plot conflicts with it more than the other monsters of the week that have been used (which could just be considered demons by other names).

I wish Crane would update his wardrobe. I'd love to see him in some slim slacks and a button down shirt with an overcoat that was reminiscent of his old clothes, but modern.

I think it's possible to have differing opinions without thinking/saying that others are "watching it wrong".

Edited November 22, 2015 by cynic

[Jellybeans]

I watched two seasons of "Orange is the New Black". Never want to see it again. I do not know why.

[Julia]

I watched two seasons of "Orange is the New Black". Never want to see it again. I do not know why.

I gave up after season 1 because the grand operatic doomed passion of Alex and Piper and their clashes of sullen narcissism gave my hives hives. And it's a shame, because I thought just about everyone else was doing a fine job.

[amensisterfriend]

ITA that the earlier seasons of a show are often far less idyllic than they're made out to be in retrospect while the later seasons are rarely as disastrous or as radical a departure from those earlier season as irate fans claim they are! 

 

I'm here to confess that I just don't think Brooklyn Nine Nine is funny. I liked parts of the first season and had high hopes for the show, but it's just not working for me. I wanted to love it, but I don't love the characters as much as I know I should and find the humor incredibly lame. 

[Julia]

I think with Sleepy Hollow, it's not so much that the first season was the greatest thing ever, it was that they had lightning in a bottle with their actors and what they made of their roles and some of us felt like it had the potential to be the greatest thing ever.

 

Then, of course, because it's apparently the law when you make genre fiction for television, the showrunner determinedly jossed everything he didn't think people should be enjoying about His Show, which left only the not the greatest thing ever parts, the triumphant niche audience who loved them, and a fair number of people who gave up and left. And yeah, I think the whole land of lost content thing is more about what people hoped for, not necessarily what they got. And so it goes.

Edited November 23, 2015 by Julia

[lucindabelle]

Actually, the first season of Sleepy Hollow WAS the greatest thing ever. It moved at lightning speed, surprised me constantly, made me laugh. I never knew just what was going to happen. I did some recaps for an Unnamed Website of Major Paper and I remember writing: "and that's all before the credits!"

 

This season is better than last season but it's still on the slow side. And they're overdoing it with Crane and the anachronisms, the "tis," the "quill," whole deal.

 

For me, I am relieved they've backed off the whole apocalypse thing. For one thing, some of us aren't Christian and find it all a reach, ditto purgatory and Hell.  For another, I think in any horror movie, the minute you invoke the Devil, I start wondering, "Where is G-d? Why doesn't He just step in and make it right?" If there are devils there need to be angels etc. etc. It takes me way out of the story.

 

But you can be supernatural and spooky as hell without going anywhere near that. So I like Pandora storyline. I did find the toothfairy episode seriously creepy.

[cynic]

I think tv is a very subjective medium. While some shows are clearly and objectively terrible and a few shows are judged brilliant by general consensus, most shows fall somewhere between good, serviceable, and mediocre depending on your personal taste.

We all watch for different reasons and varying things will resonate for each of us, so to say that obviously a show is so and so and if you don't think so then you're wrong is pretty arrogant. I wish we all could say that things do/don't work for us personally without being all "you just don't get it", "you're being closed-minded", "you judgement is clouded" etc. I'd also love it if people could stop saying things like "well, I'm not a xxxx, so I'm not biased" as if being whatever renders people incapable of having a thought out opinion or their preferences are wrong or unworthy.

Edited November 23, 2015 by cynic

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think tv is a very subjective medium. While some shows are clearly and objectively terrible and a few shows are judged brilliant by general consensus, most shows fall somewhere between good, serviceable, and mediocre depending on your personal taste.

We all watch for different reasons and varying things will resonate for each of us, so to say that obviously a show is so and so and if you don't think so then you're wrong is pretty arrogant. I wish we all could say that things do/don't work for us personally without being all "you just don't get it", "you're being closed-minded", "you judgement is clouded" etc. I'd also love it if people could stop saying things like "well, I'm not a xxxx, so I'm not biased" as if being whatever renders people incapable of having a thought out opinion or their preferences are wrong or unworthy.

 

As a corollary to the above, I'll add that in some ways, fandom is the worst thing that's ever happened to television.

 

It isn't just that no one is ever happy with anything, although that's a big part of it IMO. Fandom as a whole knows neither logic nor reason, and it doesn't care to learn to apply it. And I'm just as guilty as the next person who's guilty of it, so I'm speaking from experience. If it isn't shipper wars, its the Mary Sue debate or which characters can't die fast enough or why one character's behavior is terrible when the same exact behavior from someone else is acceptable, around and around and around. At least places like this offer an actual forum for discussion as opposed to 140 characters of bellowing into cyberspace before your comments get lost.

[ABay]

Fandom on its own was OK. Even fandom and the internet combined were OK. The trouble started with the convergence of fandom, internet, and television industry people. No good comes of that.

[Julia]

Not sure that fandom is a net negative. I do think that when fandom goes on a rampage, it distorts things. I also think that producers use rude rude tweets as an excuse to ignore fan feedback they don't want to hear.

I'm kind of hoping edgy douchebag producers sending viewers haring off to watch cable are going to influence who gets paid to make network TV. I'm not sure how hopeful I am.

[kiddo82]

Fandom on its own was OK. Even fandom and the internet combined were OK. The trouble started with the convergence of fandom, internet, and television industry people. No good comes of that.

Of all those things I think the Internet is the single biggest influence on the way we perceive media and not always for the better. I've said this before but I'm a big fan of letting things breath and Internet encourages the exact opposite of that. Not that instant reaction doesn't have a place, and not that I myself can never be a prisoner of the moment, (Like Cobalt Stargazer, I speak from experience), but most things are more accurately analyzed (even things as trivial as TV) with some perspective. I'm not talking about the shocking ending on this week's Scandal or the latest bloody ass impaling on Game of Thrones. I mean more big picture stuff. Nowadays, professionals and fans alike trip all over themselves to declare, after one episode, a show is the next Seinfeld, has jumped the shark, is the greatest thing ever, is in a sophomore slump, is the worst thing ever, etc. It's not that I'm against living in the moment, but making superlative declarations after just about everything doesn't make sense to me.

Every relationship I've had with a TV show has had its peaks and valleys (yes, it's a relationship) but all that ultimately matters is if I'm still getting out of it what I want. Am I still having fun? Is the show still surprising me? Scaring me? Making me think, laugh, or cry? Do I still care about these characters? As long as I can check those boxes it's a relationship worth having. Where it falls in my pantheon of all things TV will work itself out over time.

Edited November 24, 2015 by kiddo82

[ganesh]

Because TPTBs put out information on social media, lots of people are making decisions about shows before actually watching.

Nowadays, professionals and fans alike trip all over themselves to declare, after one episode, a show is the next Seinfeld, has jumped the shark, is the greatest thing ever, is in a sophomore slump, is the worst thing ever, etc.

 

Which leads to this. Either a show is the best thing ever or it sucks. I try to watch a few episodes first.

 

Here at PTV, I think most of the fandom is actually quite good overall. 

[Rick Kitchen]

I'm on another forum where after every "Big Bang Theory" episode, somebody feels forced to post, "Worst episode ever."  It's happened so often, it's now become a meme.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Of all those things I think the Internet is the single biggest influence on the way we perceive media and not always for the better. I've said this before but I'm a big fan of letting things breath and Internet encourages the exact opposite of that. Not that instant reaction doesn't have a place, and not that I myself can never be a prisoner of the moment, (Like Cobalt Stargazer, I speak from experience), but most things are more accurately analyzed (even things as trivial as TV) with some perspective.

 

As a refugee of sorts from the Buffyverse fandom, that was what I was mainly referring to of people never letting things go, but I'll use something else for a change because it's just as relevant.

 

Let's consider Paget Brewster, who joined the cast of Criminal Minds as Emily Prentiss early in the second season, replacing Lola Glaudini's Elle Greenaway. The CM fandom loves Brewster now, and that's terrific because she's awesome. But man, they sure as hell didn't love her when she first showed up, since courtesy of the Wayback Machine I looked at the old CM thread back on Television Without Pity, and all most people wanted to see of her was her back as she walked out the door. Hated her, hated her character, wanted both of them to go away and not come back. And it wasn't even that they were clamoring for Elle to come back, since plenty of folks were glad to see the back of her too.

 

Fast forward to, well, now, when people are still griping that Brewster won't return to the show, even though she's said that she has no interest in reprising her role, and is now working on Grandfathered regardless. I'm wondering if, in however many years if the show is still around, the people who hated Jeanne Tripplehorn taking Brewster's place will be talking about her two season on the show as if that was the greatest thing ever. Particularly when they virtually brutalized her just as much as they once beat up on Paget. I happened to have been looking forward to JT being part of the cast, which I think is a UO, and it made me feel bad for her when viewers reacted badly to her.

[Miss Dee]

Compare fandom's reaction to Joss Carter at the beginning of her stint on Person of Interest to the end of it. Night and Day.

And normally I just laugh and ignore it, but in Sleepy Hollow's case I'm afraid the bitterness is going to get the show cancelled. And it doesn't deserve it, not now.

[Archery]

That's par for the course for the sci-fi fantasy fandom: love a show for minute, then bitch about it until it gets cancelled.

[cynic]

"Fandom" isn't a static entity though. Sometimes the opinions change. Sometimes the people change. It might be that fans who didn't like certain characters or aspects of a show simply stopped watching or stopped caring enough to participate online leaving those that did like whatever in the majority or with the loudest voices. And sometimes the writers end up tweaking characters and they improve enough to change people's minds. It doesn't necessarily mean "aha! Those early critics were wrong!"

I don't want to see Sleepy Hollow get cancelled either, but I think it's better to counteract negativity by presenting your own reasons why you think a show is good rather than by telling people why they're at fault for not enjoying it.

[SmithW6079]

That's par for the course for the sci-fi fantasy fandom: love a show for minute, then bitch about it until it gets cancelled.

Then cry that it ended too soon and begin a campaign to bring it back. 

[lucindabelle]

Oh I'd definitely say Sleepy Hollow is vastly improved from last year, though not as good as the first year. That first year I used to rush home from work to watch it! Somewhere in the second year I realized I wasn't even watching it within a few days.

My theory is that overarching stories tend to sag. I loved "Copper" when it was a 19th-century procedural; it went off the rails when it began to have an ongoing storyline. The Katrina and Son storyline sucked, and was uninteresting as were the actors.

With "monster of the week," if one week bores, the next week might not. Similarly "SVU" when it was all about Marisa's nemesis was a yawn.

An overarching story line can stretch to no more than three episodes before it takes over, in my opinion.

So while I don't love SH so much as I did, it's still decent and faster moving than, say, any of the CSIs...

[ganesh]

SH has had an overall narrative this season and it's going quite well, with the shard. They clearly built to this mid season finale. 

[cynic]

...

My theory is that overarching stories tend to sag. ......

I agree with this and since scifi tends to be more serialized than many genres and is more likely to be cancelled, it suffers from more sophomore slumps than other genres leading to that supposed fandom turn. A lot of serialized scifi shows start out really strong, because the first season arc is well thought out. Also, the writers often try to move fast and get a lot of ideas in to entice viewers to stave off cancelation or to try to get a complete story in by the season finale in case they don't come back. But then they do come back and it's like, well what do we do now and how do we make it last for five years? And then everything slows to a crawl, becomes completely nonsensical, or starts introducing things that have nothing to do with the original premise. I wish show runners would start out planning for five years.

Which brings me to my UO, I don't think season length has much of an effect on writing qualify. I think the more problematic issue is the open ended nature of TV. I think serialized shows would be stronger narratively if they had a firm end date for the series whether they had ten episodes per season or twenty two. I also don't think the occasional "filler" episode is necessarily bad as long as it explores the characters or even just to break some overwhelming darkness, even if it's not advancing the arc.

And lastly, another SH UO:

I think the show's decline happened halfway through season 1, not in season 2. I don't even think the season 1 arc was planned out fully since it ended up so different from how it started. I also thought the Jeremy twist that the critics loved was lame.

[ganesh]

But then they do come back and it's like, well what do we do now and how do we make it last for five years?

 

Don't make it last 5 years? Not to be coy, but not every show needs to be this magical 5 years anymore. We're doing 30 episodes, and that's it. 

I like that the anthologies are popular now. It would be cool to see a scifi one. 

[cynic]

Oh I agree. I meant to say that too. I think that a lot of shows would actually work better if they planned them to only be oonly season or even a miniseries. I miss miniseries events.

[Crim]

And normally I just laugh and ignore it, but in Sleepy Hollow's case I'm afraid the bitterness is going to get the show cancelled. And it doesn't deserve it, not now.

That's par for the course for the sci-fi fantasy fandom: love a show for minute, then bitch about it until it gets cancelled.

It's not bitterness and bitching online that gets shows cancelled. It's people no longer watching. And people did this before internet too.

UO: It's normal to lose interest in a show for whatever reason. No longer watching a show, even after 5-6 seasons, is not the same as not doubling down on an investment. You don't "waste" the time already spent watching a show if you enjoyed it at the time; watching a show you no longer enjoy is more of a waste. Also, we, as viewers, do not owe the show runners our time or depend on their one show for entertainment (<-- This bitterness is not about SH. It's the Grimm writers.)

 

And lastly, another SH UO:

I think the show's decline happened halfway through season 1, not in season 2. I don't even think the season 1 arc was planned out fully since it ended up so different from how it started. I also thought the Jeremy twist that the critics loved was lame.

I stopped watching SH at the end of the first season, and I can't even remember why, but I do remember that the last episodes were a drag and I was uninterested in and unimpressed by the twist. When season 2 started, I just didn't watch - and this was from the first episode, way before the negativity started. Even if season 3 is as good as season 1 was or better, I don't have the time and motivation to watch season 2 for it. Once I drop a show, it takes something so huge to determine me to pick it up again that it hardly ever happens. (Person of Interest, which I was uninterested in from the pilot, and Marvel Agents of SHIELD, which I dropped in early season 1, are the only exceptions in recent years. I wouldn't have watched Agents of SHIELD if it weren't for 3 things: I'd watched the recent Marvel movies, I streamed seasons 1 and 2 during lunch breaks at work, and I had free time to keep watching due to dropping a lot of shows this season.)

Edited November 25, 2015 by Crim

[lucindabelle]

I wish show runners would start out planning for five years.

I think the more problematic issue is the open ended nature of TV. I think serialized shows would be stronger narratively if they had a firm end date for the series whether they had ten episodes per season or twenty two. I also don't think the occasional "filler" episode is necessarily bad as long as it explores the characters or even just to break some overwhelming darkness, even if it's not advancing the arc.

 

This is VERY true. I loved PBS' "The Guilty" because I like the actors even if the mystery was a little dumb in the end. But it had three episodes only, and was completely thought out. Also true of "In the Flesh," both seasons. The first season, just three episodes, I burst into tears at the final show-- so moving-- and not only, I hope, because I was in bed with pleurisy.

 

going waaaaaay back, "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin" also was thought out.

 

The "write as you go" method only works for shows that don't have a long arc, and writers can't seem to resist that-- even on sitcoms, where it becoms a love interest. "Mad About You" was ruined when the couple began quarrelling, ditto "Dharma and Greg;" I used to like "New Girl" but the romance and breakup killed it. The romance would have been fine but the break up and we're still roommates? just no.

 

Some how "frasier" managed it but most don't.

 

I think one reason "Law and Order" lasted so long was its resistance to that structure.

[spaceytraci1208]

I think one reason "Law and Order" lasted so long was its resistance to that structure.

And there was never a deficit of real-life crime that they couldn't use as the foundation of an episode lol

[Anna Yolei]

I gave up after season 1 because the grand operatic doomed passion of Alex and Piper and their clashes of sullen narcissism gave my hives hives. And it's a shame, because I thought just about everyone else was doing a fine job.

I'd recommend sticking it out to season three at least. Piper almost becomes a second tier character at that point, giving more focus to the rest of the cast (and rightfully so, because Piper is, at very best,boring as fuck).

[Anna Yolei]

I usually have a high threshold for things that will offend or embarrass me. I'm fairly opened minded about a lot of stuff. But I just can't deal with Family Guy. Our 17 year old son is watching it on Netflix and, there has been a lot of eye rolling, raised eyebrows and the occasional "seriously? WTF?" on my part, but I was able to mostly ignore it. Then, in the course of the last few episodes, I heard rape jokes, a joke about a teenager self aborting her pregnancy, 9/11 jokes and spousal abuse jokes complete with watching the guy slap his wife a few times. Our son is a good kid and I trust that we've raised him right and that he's more than likely beyond having tv influence him, so I haven't forbidden him from watching it, but I've explained why I can't listen to it anymore and told him that he's not allowed to watch it while I'm around.

Random fact: Seth MacFarlane was actually booked on one of the flights that crashed into the Trade Center. He missed boarding because he overslept.

Which reminds me: the latest episode FG (the one where Peter's sister comes to Thanksgiving and is even more boorish than himself) is the first one I've seen without a single cutaway gag...which is one of the things that has put me off the show and ruined "Ted" for me, too.

[ganesh]

OITNB is quite watchable when Piper/Alex are only supporting characters. 

[OptimisticCynic]

I would like Jessica Jones if it weren't for Krysten Ritter. I really can't stand her as an actress. Her performances grate on me.

[topanga]

Oh I'd definitely say Sleepy Hollow is vastly improved from last year, though not as good as the first year. That first year I used to rush home from work to watch it! Somewhere in the second year I realized I wasn't even watching it within a few days.

My theory is that overarching stories tend to sag. I loved "Copper" when it was a 19th-century procedural; it went off the rails when it began to have an ongoing storyline. The Katrina and Son storyline sucked, and was uninteresting as were the actors.

With "monster of the week," if one week bores, the next week might not. Similarly "SVU" when it was all about Marisa's nemesis was a yawn.

An overarching story line can stretch to no more than three episodes before it takes over, in my opinion.

So while I don't love SH so much as I did, it's still decent and faster moving than, say, any of the CSIs...

I totally agree with you about Sleepy Hollow, but I will say that sometimes the season-long story arc (or multiple arcs) can work. The first season of "Veronica Mars" was one of the best seasons of television I've ever seen. I still go back and watch my DVDs. This formula was repeated in the second season with less success, and it was abandoned completely in the third season. 

 

So yes, it's difficult to sustain an interesting season-long story arc, but it can work in the right hands.

 

 

 

I stopped watching SH at the end of the first season, and I can't even remember why, but I do remember that the last episodes were a drag and I was uninterested in and unimpressed by the twist. When season 2 started, I just didn't watch - and this was from the first episode, way before the negativity started. Even if season 3 is as good as season 1 was or better, I don't have the time and motivation to watch season 2 for it.

The end of season 1 is when the show began its shift away from Crane-Abbie and towards Katrina and the Crane Family Drama. 

Edited November 27, 2015 by topanga

[Chaos Theory]

My problem with OITNB is that all or most of the characters are victims of an unfair legal system. That is good social commentary but it gets kind of repetitive after awhile having everyone be a victim and not a perpetrator.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Crim]

I will say that sometimes the season-long story arc (or multiple arcs) can work. The first season of "Veronica Mars" was one of the best seasons of television I've ever seen.

And Joss Whedon managed it more than once on his shows. Crime shows too. Tellingly, the original The Killing did this for all its seasons, but the US remake didn't manage it. Broadchurch even stretched the story over 2 seasons without fucking it up.

With "monster of the week," if one week bores, the next week might not.

UO: There is a gulf between people who enjoy procedurals, and people who don't; communication and understanding are possible, but not really seeing from the other PoV. If there is no story, I can't take "monster/case of the week" for long. I never could, even if I tried, even if I took breaks. I tried hard for Elementary, because I liked the characters and I tried to see their evolving dynamics as a story arc, but I had to drop the show after not being able to finish an episode even after giving it a few weeks(*). I find no fun or interest in mystery/drama/whatever that is presented, solved, and has an aftermath in around 40-50 minutes; it's shallow, usually with a repetitive flow, and either obvious hints or sudden twists, or both. But say that it's not, that a show is just amazing, it's still the same thing every week for usually a ton of seasons, and I quickly just have enough of it. For example, I watched 2 courtroom dramas last weekend (Anatomy of a Murder and Witness for the Prosecution) and they were amazing. Even if a TV show would reach this level (and how could it do this in 45 minutes?), I can't imagine watching a case every week for months, then doing it again next season.

 

(*) ETA: I couldn't remember the case in the previous episodes, because I was already tuning out of that part of the show. I only realized this when I took a break, then checked a new episode's synopsis only to realize I could read about the last few episodes and not know if I watched those or not. Wasted time, basically. I could have watched videos on youtube for the same effect: spend an hour looking at moving stuff, then promptly forget what I saw.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Crim

[Chaos Theory]

My problem with OITNB is that all or most of the characters are victims of an unfair legal system. That is good social commentary but it gets kind of repetitive after awhile having everyone be a victim and not a perpetrator.

 

Can you explain this? I didn't get the impression that most of them were victims and not perpetrators.

A fair number of the stories were written as sad examples of what happens to people who make single bad decisions which is usually what happens to protagonist characters that end up in prison.  They make a bad choice and end up in jail.  Instead the show did a reversal.  Piper is a bit of criminal and is entering a place where most of the others are in prison for single bad choices...Watson is the best example of this.   Hell you can even make a case for Sophia   Then we have systematic abuse of the system cases....perfect example of this is Tastey who never had a chance because no one ever gave her one and yet she really isn't a criminal despite all that.     Most of the backstories are custom made to make you feel sorry for the character instead of understand why they in prison.    Of course there are exceptions.  I am not saying everyone.  I am saying a large number of the cases.

[Neurochick]

Compare fandom's reaction to Joss Carter at the beginning of her stint on Person of Interest to the end of it. Night and Day.

And normally I just laugh and ignore it, but in Sleepy Hollow's case I'm afraid the bitterness is going to get the show cancelled. And it doesn't deserve it, not now.

 

Here's what I felt at the time.  Both Person of Interest and Sleepy Hollow suffered from the same bullshit disease.  You have a show with a WOC, a black woman as the leading female or only female character; then someone, usually a white male is like, "Nope, can't have that; we need more white looking women on TV."  To me that's what happened to both of these shows.  

[ganesh]

The split on OITNB between actual criminal and victim seems rather even iirc. 

 

Broadchurch even stretched the story over 2 seasons without fucking it up.

 

The "seasons" were only 8 episodes though, which makes it a little easier, and a better overall product. It's nearly impossible to maintain strong of an arc with 20+episodes per season, unless it's Babylon 5 and the same person literally writes everything. 

Cable has a better model for this since short seasons are now the norm. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Here's what I felt at the time.  Both Person of Interest and Sleepy Hollow suffered from the same bullshit disease.  You have a show with a WOC, a black woman as the leading female or only female character; then someone, usually a white male is like, "Nope, can't have that; we need more white looking women on TV."  To me that's what happened to both of these shows.  

 

I don't know if this is a UO, per se, but it is an opinion, so:

 

I don't believe that there are no people of color working at major networks, people that actually make decisions that affect what shows up on the air and who gets a role. Not including Shonda Rimes, obvs, since she must have had a hand in the casting of Tony Goldwyn as Olivia Pope's boyfriend, and Fitz is another matter for another time. IMO, it presumes facts not in evidence to say that Carter was killed off because a white man didn't think there weren't enough white faces on TV.

 

*inserting space for it to be pointed out that racism exists, because I've lived under a rock for forty-six years and didn't know that*

[Miss Dee]

UO: There is a gulf between people who enjoy procedurals, and people who don't; communication and understanding are possible, but not really seeing from the other PoV.

I must be ambiseriesus then, because I love serialized stories and procedurals.

[cynic]

If you like anthologies as well, you could be omniserieus.

[Misslindsey]

My UO is that I do not think every man on a reality show that gets angry or acts like a douche automatically has anger issues. I am not talking about any physical violence that is a whole different ballgame. I am sure there are some that actually do have anger issues, but sometimes people do stupid things when they get mad (again not talking about physical violence). I guess I see anger issues thrown out a lot when sometimes someone is just pissed off and blowing off steam.

 

 

[ganesh]

I didn't even know that was a thing.

 

On tv, when an adult is going to talk to a kid, they kneel down. I always find that condescending. 

 

And shut off your car radios!

Edited November 28, 2015 by ganesh

[SmithW6079]

On tv, when an adult is going to talk to a kid, they kneel down. I always find that condescending.

Generally, children are shorter than adults, so kneeling down so you can be face-to-face to a child is not condescending at all; it's considerate so you're not talking down to them.

[ganesh]

Well, I think it is. So, I don't do that. I don't know what life experience you have to definitively rule whether kneeling down or not is officially condescending. It's always done on tv, and it's my UO, which is the point of the thread.

[Julia]

Generally, children are shorter than adults, so kneeling down so you can be face-to-face to a child is not condescending at all; it's considerate so you're not talking down to them.

e

It's been my experience, more so with children up to ~1-2 grade than with older children, that it's easier to engage them when they can see your face because it's on their level. But then, given the height differential, asking a 3' person to speak to a standing 6' person is roughly equivalent to asking a 6' person to have a conversation with someone leaning out a second story window, so I can't imagine it's very comfortable physically.

[kiddo82]

In the hospital setting we were taught to sit down when engaging a patient at bedside so as not to literally be looking down at him. I imagine the same rule of thumb can apply when speaking to children.

Edited November 28, 2015 by kiddo82

[Sara2009]

Yep, I was always taught to come down to the child's level to engage him/her. The child is more likely to pay attention to what you're saying that way.

[MaryMitch]

Just to be practical - on TV, they want to get both heads in the shot. So either the adult needs to get lower, the child higher, or they need to sit on a couch or something.

[ganesh]

It's strikes me as very hackey because you the adult is going to Say Something Important. 

I've never had a problem not kneeling down to a kids' level, so #CarRadio.

[DearEvette]

My problem with OITNB is that all or most of the characters are victims of an unfair legal system. That is good social commentary but it gets kind of repetitive after awhile having everyone be a victim and not a perpetrator.

 

I think this might also be a case of the actual type of prison OINTB is set in.  It is a minimum security federal prison.  So it isn't like, say, Oz or something with hardcore career criminals.  So it makes sense that some of what they did to land them there are lapses of judgement or just plain old dumb decisions.  And the truth is poor, minority women with a lack of education and resources like Taystee are more likely to be incarcerated than someone like Piper.  That said I do like it when we see a backstory where at least you don't feel quite so bad they are in there like with Morello and her stalking or Black CIndy and her outright thievery or even Gloria and her fraud.

 

 

 

I don't know if this is a UO, per se, but it is an opinion, so:

 

I don't believe that there are no people of color working at major networks, people that actually make decisions that affect what shows up on the air and who gets a role. Not including Shonda Rimes, obvs, since she must have had a hand in the casting of Tony Goldwyn as Olivia Pope's boyfriend, and Fitz is another matter for another time. IMO, it presumes facts not in evidence to say that Carter was killed off because a white man didn't think there weren't enough white faces on TV.

 

I do think there are more and more people of color on the creative side, but I still think the decision making side -- the rarefied air with the money and decision making clout is still overwhelmingly white.  I will say, though, that even on the creative side it is still a struggle with getting people to see POC outside of a certain box -- as the conversation between Matt Damon and Effie White so effectively illustrated.   I believe wholeheartedly when execs talk about casting female leads esp. romantic female leads very, very, very few are gonna call out the name of a WOC first in their list because they don't see them that way.  So it is no surprise when you get a character like Carter who is presented for three seasons as a no-nonsense, no make-up wearing hard nosed cop.  She didn't even put on a dress til they were about to kill her off.  And again it is the same rhetoric we get around Abbie's character -- 'She doesn't need a man!' -- also a non-nonsene, no make-up wearing hard nosed cop. But the first chance they get they put Katrina is a push up bra-corset and skinny jeans?  If it weren't for the fans constantly agitating I think TPTB would have been happy keeping Abbie as this sexless thing.

 

 

I must be ambiseriesus then, because I love serialized stories and procedurals.

 

Me too.  I do think there are some who like one more than the other, but I don't mind either.  I do think that even if you like both, you can get a little frustrated though depending on the show.   How you receive a show is how they market it to you on the outset.  if you know you are going in expecting to be watching a procedural then that is what you are happy to get.  The problems come when they get fancy and try to string you along for several episodes and stealthily make it a serialized arc.  That is when your dissatisfaction sets in.  Same with a serialized show.  You settle in for a season of an ongoing narrative storyline and boom, next season they decide , naw, we'll make it more serialized it messes up your understanding of that show's identity.

[Miss Dee]

I think it depends on the quality. Person of Interest went from a great procedural to a stellar serialized show, and I was on board all the way. It still blends some procedural aspects into itself, though. Sleepy Hollow supposedly went to a more procedural format, but I would say it's more like Burn Notice. And Person of Interest, for that matter.

Behold the mulleted show: procedural in the front, serial in the back!

But if a show was doing either procedural or serial really well, and then attempted to do the other in a not so well manner, that would get on my nerves.