Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[tribeca]

My UO's about OUAT

  I like the hero's more than the villains.

Always like Bae and Neil.  Felt he should have been an important character outside of a love interest for Emma.  Bae/Neil was the reason for the first curse.  He is Henry's father,  Rumple's son and Hook's friend/enemy.  Neil lived for 300 years surely there was a story in there.

  People seem to hate Neil for setting up Emma and leaving her alone in jail while cheering on Rumple & Evil Queen who ripped apart families, murdered whole villages and who knows what else.

   I also don't think Rumple should get a happy ending.

[Chaos Theory]

Here is what I THINK is an unpopular opinion:

 

Except for Early Charming and Early Henry and well Shiny Dark One Rumple   I don't think there has been a single decent male character on Once Upon A Time.  

Edited December 3, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[applecrisp]

Wow, I just can't watch OUAT anymore.

 

My UO is to do with The Man in the High Castle.  I liked it and was shocked when I saw the American flag with the swastika on it.  I still love this country with all it's many faults.  I am not a flag wearer but I am glad I was born here.  If that makes me naive and stupid to some I don't care.

 

My other UO is that when I saw the jewish family practice their faith it moved me.  I am borderline atheist but I wish I had faith in something like many do.  Again not the faith where the bible is quoted  ad nauseum and only certain people make it to heaven but of the quiet faith some have and are stronger for it.

[Archery]

I agree, applecrisp, that scene in TMITHC was lovely.  My UO is that I wish TV would show more regular religious scenes -- as opposed to (1) the crazy religious person (creepy serial killer on L&O), (2) trying to make a statement about the world (cop goes into mosque and watches prayers before interrogating suspected terrorist), or (3) wacky religious hi-jinks (H'wood's version of a black church service makes me stabby).  I would love to see regular people saying grace, referring to going to temple for high holidays, etc., as it is in real life, not as a specific plot point but as a casual but important part of the fabric of life.    

[kili]

I never heard similar criticism about the creators or show runners of ER, even when the deteriorated into a glorified soap opera. People criticized the show, yes, but no one ever called Jack Orman (showrunner) a terrible person, a hack, and a racist.

 

I was on the alt.tv forums at that time and believe me, he got called many a name. Because the show predated the boom of the internet we have had in the last few years, it wasn't as big or as obvious to the casual person.

 

But, since we are talking about Wheedon, Once and abusive fans making it too personal. Wheedon had to delete his twitter due to the avalanche of abuse he received after the last Avengers movie. Adm Horriwitz, the creator/writer/producer of Once, had to delete his twitter account today due to some fans losing their minds after the fall finale.  So, overly personal abuse is not just directed at the females in the biz. In both these latter cases, the abuse was related to plot developments related to female characters...which leads me to my apparently Unpopluar Opnion...

 

I don't think a female character is weak because they fall in love with somebody. If Superman and Spiderman and John McLean and Bryan Mills and Aragorn and Han Solo and Indiana Jones can fall in love with somebody and still be bad ass, so can women.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't think a female character is weak because they fall in love with somebody. If Superman and Spiderman and John McLean and Bryan Mills and Aragorn and Han Solo and Indiana Jones can fall in love with somebody and still be bad ass, so can women.

In the cases you brought up it was 75% being awesome and 25% romance however the finale of Obce and The season in general was 75% romance and 25% being awesome which is how a lot of female driven shows tend to run. Edited December 8, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[kili]

In the cases you brought up it was 75% being awesome and 25% romance however the finale of Obce and The season in general was 75% romance and 25% being awesome which is how a lot of female driven shows tend to run.

 

I disagree, but if that is what people object to, that is what they should complain about.

 

Instead, across the board, I see some people complaining every time there is even a hint that a strong female be anything other than a workaholic with no time for anybody in their lives. People wanted David dead on Blindspot because his mere existence made his female love interest "weak". Want him dead because you don't like the character or he is taking stupid chances, fine, but he wasn't making Patterson weak.  There mere suggestion that Agent Carter might go on a date is met with howls of protest from some people because they infer that it would make her weak. Some people's stated objection to Once is that Emma does not need a man in her life. So, there appears to be a fair number of people with the opinion that strong females are automatically made weak by the simple presence of a love interest.

 

Women are not weak because they love somebody.

Edited December 9, 2015 by kili

[Julia]

Instead, across the board, I see some people complaining every time there is even a hint that a strong female be anything other than a workaholic with no time for anybody in their lives. People wanted David dead on Blindspot because his mere existence made his female love interest "weak". Want him dead because you don't like the character or he is taking stupid chances, fine, but he wasn't making Patterson weak.  There mere suggestion that Agent Carter might go on a date is met with howls of protest from some people because they infer that it would make her weak.

 

Women are not weak because they love somebody.

 

Well, I think a certain amount of the Agent Carter agita may be down to people not wanting her to let go of Steve Rogers.

 

That said, I'm not sure what fandoms you're seeing this in, but you would probably enjoy the Sleepy Hollow threads, where the consensus is that Abby, the female lead, is being wildly disserved by being portrayed as a buttoned-down working woman with no room in her life for romance.

[ganesh]

I like weird shows, but I don't like shows being weird for the sake of being weird. If you can't establish an decent internal logic after a reasonable amount of time, then that's your problem TPTBs

. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

So, overly personal abuse is not just directed at the females in the biz.

 

New UO: It isn't a competition about who "gets it worse" from fans/viewers. If it is a competition, it isn't one based on gender. Poke your head into the GH threads sometime, and you'll see that men can and do get plenty of brutal criticism, and usually because they deserve it. I don't think there's any way that it's always sexism or racism or whatever other ism that's behind all complaints criticisms. Sometimes it's just because the person in question might not always be awesome at their job, or even very good at it in general.

 

Instead, across the board, I see some people complaining every time there is even a hint that a strong female be anything other than a workaholic with no time for anybody in their lives.

 

Michonne on The Walking Dead seems to be an exception to this, since in that forum here I've seen interest in seeing her paired with either Rick or Daryl, but in general I think there's a trend against shipping of any sort lately. The claim is that it "ruins the show" or makes it "jump the shark" (ie, Booth/Brennan, Castle/Beckett, Rizzoli/Isles*) and I don't think that's true. I think bad writing is what wrecks a show, and sometimes bad showrunning, and while that can be connected to putting characters together romantically, that's really just a symptom, not the disease.

 

*Oh, wait, that last one's just in my head.

[ganesh]

Typically, TPTBs end up putting the leads together because they've run out of ideas. So the bad writing is from the lack of creativity so they do that, and the show declines. 

[Guest]

Well, I think a certain amount of the Agent Carter agita may be down to people not wanting her to let go of Steve Rogers.

 

I've always thought that Agent Carter fandom is generally pretty interested in who Agent Carter's mystery husband is and don't ship her with the obvious candidates because they don't fit the movie clues.

Edited December 9, 2015 by ParadoxLost

[Julia]

Probably true, but since I've never seen someone who watched the show have that reaction, I figured it was probably aggrieved Avengers fans.

[topanga]

Typically, TPTBs end up putting the leads together because they've run out of ideas. So the bad writing is from the lack of creativity so they do that, and the show declines. 

That's possible, but I also think that maybe they'd been considering putting together the leads for a while (or were responding to overwhelming fandom), and maybe they just aren't good at writing believable, non-boring episodes about healthy relationships between two strong characters. Or they can't write such episodes without stripping away whatever chemistry existed between the two characters when they were just friends/working partners. It seems very difficult to do--I can't understand why, but then again, I'm not a television writer. 

[ganesh]

That's why I said typically; i.e., most of the time. Farscape put the leads together with no problem (ish), for example. It wasn't forced at all. Again, typically, writers can't write two people platonically, so they put them together, and then can't write a couple without them fighting all the time. Because they have no ideas.

[topanga]

That's why I said typically; i.e., most of the time. Farscape put the leads together with no problem (ish), for example. It wasn't forced at all. Again, typically, writers can't write two people platonically, so they put them together, and then can't write a couple without them fighting all the time. Because they have no ideas.

Got it. But in the shows I've watched over the years (Moonlighting, X-files, Living Single, Psych, Castle, Sleepy Hollow), the platonic leads were written well and had great chemistry together. In the case of Moonlighting, Living Single, and Castle, the chemistry mysteriously evaporated once the leads hooked up--hence, the fighting that you described. (On Psych, the two leads in the bromance never hooked up, on X-files they didn't get together till the tail end of the show's run, and on Sleepy Hollow, the leads haven't hooked up...yet (maybe)).

[Rick Kitchen]

I stopped watching Castle because Beckett became a shrew when they became a couple and spent all of her time making Castle prove himself to her over and over again,

[Julia]

I stopped watching Castle because Beckett became a shrew when they became a couple and spent all of her time making Castle prove himself to her over and over again,

 

But that's one of the things that pisses me off about 'the moonlighting curse' - when they try to keep the two of them apart, the writers (generally a room full of boys who generally can't write women for shit anyway) almost always seem to go to the women being horrible because that fits into their crippled view of relationships. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

But that's one of the things that pisses me off about 'the moonlighting curse' - when they try to keep the two of them apart, the writers (generally a room full of boys who generally can't write women for shit anyway) almost always seem to go to the women being horrible because that fits into their crippled view of relationships. 

 

*eyebrow*

 

'Crippled' is kind of strong, don't you think? I will grant that not many TV programs feature healthy marriages or relationships, but then again most commercials feature women being either bitchy or condescending to their clueless moron husbands. If men think women are really that horrible because of how they write them, what must they think of other men if they write them like Ray Barone and/or Derek Morgan?

 

If nothing else, Marti Noxon was the one responsible for the Season of Sleazy Sex on BTVS, and at the time one of the meaner-spirited rumors on the internet was that she had a crush on James Marsters and was vicariously living through Buffy. Whedon gets the blame for it, and that's fair because he had wandered off to work on Firefly and left her to run things in his absence, but if we're going to be making generalizations about views on relationships, let's apply the word 'crippled' on both sides of the fence.

 

*making space for it to be pointed out that men are generally not discriminated against, because that's the only way being portrayed as if you're an idiot counts*

Edited December 11, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Julia]

*eyebrow*

 

'Crippled' is kind of strong, don't you think? I will grant that not many TV programs feature healthy marriages or relationships, but then again most commercials feature women being either bitchy or condescending to their clueless moron husbands. If men think women are really that horrible because of how they write them, what must they think of other men if they write them like Ray Barone and/or Derek Morgan?

 

If nothing else, Marti Noxon was the one responsible for the Season of Sleazy Sex on BTVS, and at the time one of the meaner-spirited rumors on the internet was that she had a crush on James Marsters and was vicariously living through Buffy. Whedon gets the blame for it, and that's fair because he had wandered off to work on Firefly and left her to run things in his absence, but if we're going to be making generalizations about views on relationships, let's apply the word 'crippled' on both sides of the fence.

 

*making space for it to be pointed out that men are generally not discriminated against, because that's the only way being portrayed as if you're an idiot counts*

 

I'm certain if women had as much power as men in our society and the media which represent it and were given as many opportunities to be assholes by corporate America, they would make a comparable number of people feel inferior. I'm not sure how that relates to my point, but I'll stipulate it.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Julia

[braziliangirl]

I was watching Gossip Girl with my cousins and both of them hated Blair and Dan getting together. So it got me thinking: Is there a difference between having an UO in foruns like this or TWOP and, you know, mainstream viewers? Am I making sense?

Another example: Carrie Bradshaw is pretty much despised here but all of my friends like her.

So what constitutes to you guys an UO?

[Chaos Theory]

That's why I said typically; i.e., most of the time. Farscape put the leads together with no problem (ish), for example. It wasn't forced at all. Again, typically, writers can't write two people platonically, so they put them together, and then can't write a couple without them fighting all the time. Because they have no ideas.

Aaahhhhhhh Warehouse 13 flashback!!!!!

[ganesh]

I think TPTB on W13 were ticked off that everyone was shipping Wells/Myka and it was so *obvious* that the actors were down for it that they just forced Myka/Pete at the end because nuh uh, no gay here! I mean, the dialogue was so clunky and forced. Not to mention it was actual canon out of the character's mouth that they were platonic friends only. 

[DittyDotDot]

I was watching Gossip Girl with my cousins and both of them hated Blair and Dan getting together. So it got me thinking: Is there a difference between having an UO in foruns like this or TWOP and, you know, mainstream viewers? Am I making sense?

Another example: Carrie Bradshaw is pretty much despised here but all of my friends like her.

So what constitutes to you guys an UO?

 

Well, I pretty much live under a rock and only get around the forums here, so mine are generally unpopular things I see here. But, I don't think it needs to be limited to that. Basically, I tend to use this thread to mostly say something I don't feel welcome to say in other company. It feels safer here...sometimes, anyway.

[Demented Daisy]

I was watching Gossip Girl with my cousins and both of them hated Blair and Dan getting together. So it got me thinking: Is there a difference between having an UO in foruns like this or TWOP and, you know, mainstream viewers? Am I making sense?

Another example: Carrie Bradshaw is pretty much despised here but all of my friends like her.

So what constitutes to you guys an UO?

 

I'm not sure if I said it here or somewhere else, but I don't think there is such a thing as an "unpopular" opinion anymore.  Generally speaking, to be popular means to be approved by a large mass of people.  With the internet, most opinions are popular.  Some are more popular than others, but I find it's rare to come across an opinion that little to no people agree with.  Well, not about popular culture, anyway.

 

But, hey, that could be an unpopular opinion.  ;-)

[Crim]

I think TPTB on W13 were ticked off that everyone was shipping Wells/Myka and it was so *obvious* that the actors were down for it that they just forced Myka/Pete at the end because nuh uh, no gay here! I mean, the dialogue was so clunky and forced. Not to mention it was actual canon out of the character's mouth that they were platonic friends only. 

They also randomly shipped off Wells to an Insta!Family, discarding her story line and character development just to get rid of her. AFAIK it's not an UO that this was handled badly all around.

[izabella]

I have a Homeland UO - I really don't care about Quinn.  I don't hate him, but I don't love him either and think he's a boring character and has been for a long time now.

[PrincessEnnui]

I don't understand a fandom getting upset because their head canon couple isn't actually canon. Not directing this at anyone/any fandom, but I just don't get it. More than half the writing for canon established couples across all media (games, movies, books) suck anyway. Can someone try to explain this?

[DittyDotDot]

I don't claim to really understand this either, but I think it just comes down to people wanting to see their own version of the show rather than the show that's put in front of them.

Edited December 11, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[Gudzilla]

I don't claim to really understand this either, but I think it just comes down to people wanting to see their own version of the show rather than the show that's put in front of them.

You mean the " I didn't sign up for this" folks ?  ;)

[ganesh]

On the flip side, sometimes TPTBs want to put out a show that's not actually the show they have either. 

[Julia]

I don't understand a fandom getting upset because their head canon couple isn't actually canon. Not directing this at anyone/any fandom, but I just don't get it. More than half the writing for canon established couples across all media (games, movies, books) suck anyway. Can someone try to explain this?

I think most really satisfying headcanons I've run into have been to some extent fixits. I've rarely seen a show do a fanon couple well. I'd honestly rather they stay out of the sandbox altogether at this point.

[Crim]

And sometimes TPTBs put stuff in a show that's not actually the show they want to have after all, and sometimes this is queer baiting. It's easy to blame the fans for wanting something from a show, but actual queer baiting(*) followed by recoiling on social media or sudden, explicit "no homo" stuff on the show is repugnant. I'm adding a "YMMMV" here, but what I'm really saying with it is "I understand that some people don't give a fuck about it, just like some people don't give a fuck about racial stereotypes or representation of any kind." (*I am strictly talking about baiting, not viewers fanwanking something and getting angry when the show or the show runners or the cast disprove it.) And what's wrong with "I didn't sign up for this"? Is there something wrong with, for example, quitting a genre show because I didn't sign up for a soapy romance between a rapist and the person they raped? I didn't care enough about Grimm to be bitter about it, but I understand people who are, because "the show that's put in front of them" really sucks right now, has been bleeding out viewers, and is likely to get cancelled. And I don't see anything wrong with that either.

[ganesh]

I don't think W13 was queer baiting. The chemistry with Wells and Myka was off the charts and it was already canon that Wells was bisexual, so we were all like, hey, yeah! TPTBs freaked out about it for whatever inexplicable reason. I think they should have rolled with it. Which is totally weird because they had a gay male character on the show, and the straight male lead wasn't "no homo" at all. They even had an episode about the guy's ex-spouse. 

 

I mean, if I have a scifi/genre show, I'm bringing the slash and the hoyay. There hasn't been a single fan-loved show that hasn't had it, all the way back to TOS. 

 

The gist of the "I didn't sign up for this" is *generally* people wanting a show that's not the show being aired, and never actually was, when it's used. 

 

I think this is directly a result of so many viewers not actually watching the show anymore. I've posted before how I can't stand the "I ff-ed through most of the episode but I didn't like it and the show sucks and here's why." I also think it's due to too many people seeking out spoilers. Once you know what a spoiler is, you have a certain way of how that will play out, and if it doesn't play out that way, there's a disconnect. It's also on TPTBs too, who misuse social media.

I've also said before, I'm am as unspoiled as possible, and I don't even watch previews. I think my viewing experience is vastly different and more enjoyable. Like, I knew Jenna Coleman was leaving Doctor Who because it was all over social media, but I didn't know how or when, so I was surprised when it happened. Rather than, "oh, this is where Clara "leaves the show". (I don't want to spoil how). 

To this site's credit, whenever I've asked that any particular episode thread, only discuss the actual episode, the mods have been supportive. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by ganesh

[Chaos Theory]

I don't understand a fandom getting upset because their head canon couple isn't actually canon. Not directing this at anyone/any fandom, but I just don't get it. More than half the writing for canon established couples across all media (games, movies, books) suck anyway. Can someone try to explain this?

It depends.

I am less a shipper and more an interested party in a character and when that character gets unfairly sullied I get offended and then become a shipper out of pure resentment. For example when people in OUATland call Regina Wogina or something similar. They can have three paragraphs of well thought out ideas but then call Regina Wogina and in the same paragraph commend the show on Hook's redemption arc and relationship with Emma and I am like "Nope. Stupid irrelevant post Regina/Emma FOREVER!!!!"

Other times like with Warehouse 13 and Rizzoli & Isles it is a matter of chemistry.. On both shows two females have insane chemistry with each other that is unmistakable and acknowledged by a large amount of fans (unlike OUAT which splits the fandom in a lot of ways.)

In conclusion (and I probably could have kept this short but the top paragraph was something I wanted to get off my chest for awhile now.) People like seeing their favorite pairings on the screen. It is human nature. It is a simple and uncomplicated as that.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[GHScorpiosRule]

In the case of Moonlighting, Living Single, and Castle, the chemistry mysteriously evaporated once the leads hooked up--hence, the fighting that you described. 

 

 

I have never understood why the critics? media? Used Moonlighting as THE ONE to ascribe "curse" for the show failing because Maddie and David got together. I think it was more that it was Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard's real life animosity toward each other that did it in. Now, i only watched that show sporadically, so this is the place where I'm coming from. I didn't watch the other two.

 

BUT, I did watch Remington Steele and Scarecrow & Mrs. King ( Yes, I am dating myself, and I haven't watched a romantic comedy or drama where the leads are supposed to get together since) and in both shows, both leads were together, and the chemistry was still amazing. In the former, Remington and Laura did the dance for all four seasons, but there was no ridiculous angst or triangle to deal with. And the latter? Well, they got together in the third season--even though it wasn't overt, but based on the dialogue, you knew they were dating, and they got married toward the end of the fourth and final season, but the chemistry was still there.  I'm not sure if Scarecrow would have gotten a fifth season had Kate Jackson not gotten sick.

 

And we won't talk about how the network and show runners FUCKED up the series finale of Remington Steele and their attempt to "fix it" with that four episode, one movie fifth "season" which was an insult to me as a viewer. And they don't have the excuse that there were new writers.

 

But, my point is,  having leads get together doesn't mean the chemistry goes away. And well, chemistry is subjective after all. It just seems in the past decade or so, show runners are just damned determined to throw in as much angst/triangles as possible, thinking it makes for a good show. Which no, it does not.

[PrincessEnnui]

Thank you all for your wonderful, thoughtful responses. I can see it from a make it real perspective, but I've seen fandoms rip themselves apart in shipping wars. I still feel as though a non-canon pairing within the fandom is far better than actual canon pairings. 

 

I can also understand being frustrated if a writer is breaking up a potential coupling for fear of teh homoghey. However, I don't think that's the case every time. I think on some level the writer might be pushing back against the fandom when ship sinking, a sort of "this is my narrative, not yours." I remember when Fruits Basket came to an end, the mangaka (comic/writer) was raked over the coals for making a fanon pairing non-canon. Didn't stop the shipping of those two characters with the fans IIRC. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

I don't think W13 was queer baiting. The chemistry with Wells and Myka was off the charts and it was already canon that Wells was bisexual, so we were all like, hey, yeah! TPTBs freaked out about it for whatever inexplicable reason. I think they should have rolled with it. Which is totally weird because they had a gay male character on the show, and the straight male lead wasn't "no homo" at all. They even had an episode about the guy's ex-spouse.

 

I don't think the W13 showrunners were actually homophobic (Jack Kenny is apparently gay himself), they were just not very good at writing romance plotlines. But the way they never showed Steve so much as kiss a guy on screen and sunk the Bering/Wells ship sure left them open to criticism. Textbook case of unfortunate implications - unless SyFy got scared of "teh gay" and told them to tone it down, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, I guess. And adding insult to injury, the showrunners came up with some nonsensical explanation about the protagonists being too busy for romantic relationship, only to throw in Pete/Myka in the end. Just a complete mess all around and doubly infuriating because for once a show did a redemption storyline that was not awful, established chemistry between the redeemed character and one of the leads that for once was not based on trading insults or childish stuff like that... only to promptly write out said character for no reason.

 

Having said all that, I miss Warehouse 13 terribly. Now there was a show which knew how to properly write friendships between the protagonists and to mix fun with drama without going too far into the grimdark or silly territory.

[Julia]

I've always very strongly suspected, based on everything everyone involved in WH13 had to say about it up to that last season, that Pyka was the price they paid to get that last six episodes approved by the Wrestling Network SYFY. Since their 'relationship' took up about five minutes of screen time and, at least to me, it had no emotional impact at all (they largely looked really confused) I suppose it was worth it.

[DearEvette]

 

 

I have never understood why the critics? media? Used Moonlighting as THE ONE to ascribe "curse" for the show failing because Maddie and David got together. I think it was more that it was Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard's real life animosity toward each other that did it in. Now, i only watched that show sporadically, so this is the place where I'm coming from. I didn't watch the other two

 

[sNIP]

 

But, my point is,  having leads get together doesn't mean the chemistry goes away. And well, chemistry is subjective after all. It just seems in the past decade or so, show runners are just damned determined to throw in as much angst/triangles as possible, thinking it makes for a good show. Which no, it does not.

 

I LOVED Moonlighting when it came out.  I watched it religiously the first season oddly because it felt like the fun, sassy cousin to the more staidly elegant Remington Steele (Which I also loved).  But yes, the whole 'Moonlighting Curse' is media punditry bull.  It is a phrase that somebody coined and somebody else hopped onto and suddenly it became a thing that in reality has no basis in fact.  The showrunners admitted that the behind the scenes chaos translated on-screen.  I remember reading somewhere that soon after that episode aired, they had both lost interest in the show, Cybill was pregnant, Bruce was filming Die Hard and they barely shared any scenes together. I don't remember the last season that much because even before Dave and Maddie did the deed, I had lost interest in the show.  A more mundane explanation, sure,  but makes more sense than crackling chemistry suddenly going away just because they have sex.

 

I do think that a lot of times when a romance between leads mucks the show up, it tends to be on shows that are not conceived or written to be romance-driven in nature.  You never hear about chemistry evaporating once a couple finally get together in the more soapy/romance driven shows.  Supercouples become supercouples for a reason.   For a show that is supposed to be an action/adventure, police/law/medical drama or a genre sci-fi show where the plots tend to lend themselves to action or the emphasis is placed on what the characters are doing rather than the things they are feeling, then writing in romance angst as an overt plot point can be jarring.  And if not done skillfully it can be infuriating to both the fans who don't want a romance and the fans that do.

Edited December 12, 2015 by DearEvette

[ganesh]

I wouldn't be surprised for W13 if it was the network being homophobic and forcing Myka/Pete in exchange for the final season. It's not like the network doesn't have horrible, terrible, visceral hatred of scifi shows anyway, with a track record of about 20 years. They canceled Eureka, *while they were filming their season ending cliffhanger because they had a contracted final season*, for example. 

[kathyk24]

I hated the Warehouse 13 finale. Myka never showed romantic interest in Pete instead thinking of him as a brother. I also never saw romantic feelings between Myka and HG Wells. HG was bisexual but Myka never showed interest in women. It is possible for men and women to be friends and colleagues without being lovers. Cold Case was an excellent example of this trope.

[SmithW6079]

I don't understand a fandom getting upset because their head canon couple isn't actually canon. Not directing this at anyone/any fandom, but I just don't get it. More than half the writing for canon established couples across all media (games, movies, books) suck anyway. Can someone try to explain this?

Because people take TV entirely too seriously, and given the tenor of the times, they need to be offended about something.

[Rick Kitchen]

I don't dislike Justin from The Amazing Race.

[Danny Franks]

I stopped watching Warehouse 13 about halfway through the second season, when I realised the only way I'd continue to be able to tolerate it was if they got rid of the idiot manchild who was displaying more and more signs of being in a worrying state of arrested development. I liked Myka and Claudia, and thought Saul was okay, but Pete was awful.

 

Learning that the show ended with Pete and Myka together? Poor woman. That's not a romance, she's basically adopting a moron.

[amensisterfriend]

I've been rewatching random episodes of Lost again, which means a slew of UOs that I need to share with you guys :) 

 

1) I dislike the wildly popular Sawyer for the vast majority of the series. It drives me nuts that this vicious, bigoted, proudly obnoxious criminal who to me always looks like he's in desperate need of a bath and whose constant insults aren't even all that amusing IMO is ooohed and aaahed over when he finally deigns to act like a human being a small percentage of the time, while...

 

2) Jack, a VERY flawed but IMUO decent man, is crucified mercilessly for every single perceived misstep. I, too, struggle to love Jack sometimes, especially when they make him so charmless and humorless for large stretches of each season, but for some reason I could never fully stop liking him and ultimately rooted for him. 

 

3) While the tedious Sawyer/Kate/Jack triangle went on way, way, WAY too long and didn't do any of the three characters any favors, I have to say that every time I watch I find myself liking the widely hated Kate more and more. I'll take it an unpopular step further and say that I actually enjoy impulsive, runaway-prone, and stubborn but kind, passionate, sympathetic, spirited Kate a lot more than I do the very popular Juliet, who I enjoy in the first part of S3 but not really beyond that. She was just kind of smug and condescending and smirky for most of her time on the show, and I just didn't find her as compelling as we were supposed to. Needless to say, I also hold the UO of being indifferent to Sawyer/Juliet as a couple. Also, I love the actress who played Kate and think she did a surprisingly good job with an often somewhat thankless role. 

 

4) Ben is so essential to my enjoyment of the show that his absence from the first two seasons is one (though not the only!) reason that those first two seasons are my least favorite of the series. Most people I know still name S1 as their favorite, but I just can't enjoy it much anymore. And for some warped reason I love the widely despised Season 6. 

 

5) The very popular Locke annoys me. I definitely see his value as a character and agree that the actor is terrific, but I prefer him in small doses. (Same with Charlie, Claire, and a bunch of others, but that's probably not as unpopular!) 

 

6) The show is very flawed---a lot of the pacing is off, I agree that they left too many plot points dangling (though I do think they answered more questions than most former fans accuse them of!), a lot of the characters are pretty poorly defined, etc---and yet my UO is that I still love this show like crazy. It defies reason :) 

[Blergh]

 It doesn't matter to me how old he is or how he looks, I dislike seeing William Shatner on media simply because he comes across to me as a smug, smarmy bore who's nowhere near as talented  or clever as he'd like others to think he is.

[DittyDotDot]

I think Lost is a much more satisfying experience when binged. Granted, my perspective could be skewed since I never watched it when it originally aired, but I think I far more enjoyed the show when I watched it over the course of six months rather than if it had drug out over six years. 

 

You mean the " I didn't sign up for this" folks ?  ;)

 

Well, not exactly. The "I didn't sign up for this" folks are generally annoyed that a show became something other than it started out as. The "head cannon should be cannon" crowd are generally wanting the show to be something different than it clearly has always been. 

Edited December 13, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[Wiendish Fitch]

 It doesn't matter to me how old he is or how he looks, I dislike seeing William Shatner on media simply because he comes across to me as a smug, smarmy bore who's nowhere near as talented  or clever as he'd like others to think he is.

 

I still prefer Picard to Kirk! 

 

My Batman: The Animated Series UO:

 

I find it kind of disturbing that people view the Joker and Harley Quinn's relationship as a "love story". Um, really? A deeply twisted, sociopathic clown who regularly abuses his gun moll, who in turn started out as a grossly incompetent psychiatrist who fell for his mind games and has been gleefully complicit in his violent crimes? Sorry, everyone, but I think Batman had it right when he chewed out Harley in "Mad Love":

 

"You little fool! The Joker doesn't love anything but himself! Wake up, Harlene! He had you pegged as hired help the minute you walked into Arkham!"

Edited December 13, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[Bastet]

I have never understood why the critics? media? Used Moonlighting as THE ONE to ascribe "curse" for the show failing because Maddie and David got together. I think it was more that it was Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard's real life animosity toward each other that did it in.

 

Not really, because the "we want to throttle each other half the time" dynamic between Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis had been there since the beginning.  What sunk the show after consummation were some off-screen issues (their spats, filming for Die Hard going long so that by the time he was available again she'd run into complications with the pregnancy and wasn't available as much, Glenn Gordon Caron getting worse at his ongoing inability to deliver a script on time, an eventual writer's strike, etc.) but ultimately that post-boinking Maddie and David were written as if they were two different people than we'd watched for three years.  (And, worse yet, David as the long-suffering victim to Maddie's unreasonable shrew.)  The scripts were stupid.  The characters were unrecognizable, and not enjoyable.  There were endless reruns.  They screwed that show up on multiple levels, some of which reared their ugly heads before the characters had it off, yet somehow it got whittled down to "putting your 'will they or won't they?' characters together ruins the show" as the takeaway.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Bastet