Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Mrs. DuRona]

I have a new unpopular opinion.  I am kind of done with Randall being the center of attention.  As an adoptee myself, I was intrigued by his story, but it has dominated so much, everyone else is just "there".  I want more of Kate and Kevin, and Rebecca.  At the end of the latest episode, I found myself actually annoyed that he was on the screen for all of 2 minutes, haha.  Someone had once mentioned they felt like the show was originally about Randall, and somehow they wound up turning it into the show we have now, and I would totally believe that.  I just hope next season we get a little more from everyone else.  I would be fine with Randall getting a backseat for a while.

[NutMeg]

11 hours ago, kieyra said:

I don't expect a big crash and burn, but I also expect it to follow an "Empire"-like trajectory of hype. Meaning I expect the hype train the slow considerably about midway into season 2. 

I don't read/listen to what TPTB have to say, but based on these treads they say a lot and probably too much. I understand they think it's what they *have to do*, but from I see here it's just an invitation to backlash, and rightly so. In random order of magnitude, imagine Leonardo da Vinci giving press confs and tweeting about how we should feel about Mona Lisa. I'd think the poor Gioconda would have long fallen into oblivion by now.   

1 hour ago, Mrs. DuRona said:

I have a new unpopular opinion.  I am kind of done with Randall being the center of attention.  As an adoptee myself, I was intrigued by his story, but it has dominated so much, everyone else is just "there".  I want more of Kate and Kevin, and Rebecca.  At the end of the latest episode, I found myself actually annoyed that he was on the screen for all of 2 minutes, haha.  Someone had once mentioned they felt like the show was originally about Randall, and somehow they wound up turning it into the show we have now, and I would totally believe that.  I just hope next season we get a little more from everyone else.  I would be fine with Randall getting a backseat for a while.

I'd love for each season to have another child be the centre of attention (of the show, I mean), I had such high hopes for both the Kevin character ("he seems to be alright, no need to pay attention to him; besides, Randall is having a crisis"), because I once was a Kevin, and the Kate character, determined to change her path in so many ways the first episode, but now stuck in this supposed "love" story with a guy that is at best sub par. 

I don't know, I'm still not ready to write off the show, but I need for the writers to seriously work on it, at least as much as they want us to stay emotionally involved with it.

[Katy M]

31 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

I don't read/listen to what TPTB have to say, but based on these treads they say a lot and probably too much. I understand they think it's what they *have to do*, but from I see here it's just an invitation to backlash, and rightly so. In random order of magnitude, imagine Leonardo da Vinci giving press confs and tweeting about how we should feel about Mona Lisa. I'd think the poor Gioconda would have long fallen into oblivion by now.   

I agree. but, on the other hand, like you, I also don't pay any attention to that stuff.  It's easy enough not to.  So, if all the enforced "this is how you should feel" is annoying other viewers or ruining the show for them, there's an easy fix.

[ShadowFacts]

7 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

He did?  When?  Can you describe when this was (ideally a time stamp)?

Yes, it's still wrong but words mean what they mean.  This is especially important regarding legal terms.  And if younger people grow up reading people using them incorrectly, they will not learn the distinctions properly.

Also, I think a lot of people missed that Jack wasn't just randomly stealing from a bar.  It was a bar owned by Ray, the mafioso who sent his goons to beat them and take their money in the alley after the card game.  So he was getting their money back from Ray.  Still a crime, but morally it's far short of "robbing" a random bar.

Yes, words mean what they mean, but rob doesn't only have one meaning, it is not only a legal term.  Dictionaries list several, not to mention idiomatic uses.  This is not a legal show or a police procedural, so we're on solid ground using non-legal meanings.  As far as young people being taught distinctions, sure, it's good to know misdemeanor vs. felony (both still follow you around), but the basics work well, too, like don't take what's not yours, and don't gamble with strangers in a back alley poker game.

The fact that Jack wasn't robbing from a random bar, I didn't miss that.  Even more stupid to be messing with wise guys.  On a moral higher ground, maybe, but I wouldn't advocate it.  Really he was fixing to act just like the father he despises.  Which he recognizes when he says in his finale speech that he can't go back to being the man he was before he met Rebecca.  I really didn't buy any of it anyway, one minute he is ever so solicitous with the older lady, to the point of writing down the time and place for the blind date she arranged, and the next he is messing with underworld cretins.  Disconnect. 

[sasha206]

The fact that the actors and the writers are intent on "destroying" America with some storyline is so ridiculously manipulative.  It seems that now their main goal is to ensure there are tears shed by all for every episode, whether it's tears of joy or tears of pain.  I'd rather have a show quietly build a sad or joyful storyline versus making every show have some big gesture, some calculated speech.   

[Aloeonatable]

3 hours ago, Mrs. DuRona said:

I have a new unpopular opinion.  I am kind of done with Randall being the center of attention.  As an adoptee myself, I was intrigued by his story, but it has dominated so much, everyone else is just "there".  I want more of Kate and Kevin, and Rebecca.  At the end of the latest episode, I found myself actually annoyed that he was on the screen for all of 2 minutes, haha.  Someone had once mentioned they felt like the show was originally about Randall, and somehow they wound up turning it into the show we have now, and I would totally believe that.  I just hope next season we get a little more from everyone else.  I would be fine with Randall getting a backseat for a while.

Sterling K Brown is an award winning actor who also happens to be very, very talented. It is only natural that NBC and the producers would showcase him and his character. So far it has worked story-wise, but I too would like to see more of the other characters and I think we will. 

A similar situation happened after the first season of Heroes. Zachary Quinto, though not an award winning actor, played the part of the villain, Sylar, so well that the show didn't kill him off like they should have at the end of the season. He also had just been cast as the young Spock in the new Star Trek franchise, so that increased his "value" and TPTB created so many unbelievable story lines for him that the show tanked. 

[potatoradio]

After being unable to take one more word of depressing news, my PMS-riddled self watched both The Bachelor and TIU. I hatewatch the old Bach, but you know what? Those few minutes where the two women paused before entering the final rose of doom - those got me a little misty-eyed. Yes, two rather vapid people on a drastically overhyped and ridiculous show who demonstrated a few seconds of what appeared to be genuine vulnerability and nervousness got to me. Despite my cranky, cynical, hatewatching - I kinda felt for them. 

I felt zero watching TIU. Nada. Except I thought the fight scene was well done. It was cliche (put-upon, bitter SAHM from a rich background and drunk, blue collar hubs with heart o' gold) and has been done to death, but it kept my interest. I am a sucker for even the most derivative version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf." But, of course, the writers can't let a fight end without beating us over the head with how perfect Jack is. Because, yeah, a dude who drinks his resentment that's clearly been building for years and waiting for the right moment to squeak out? He's gonna wax rhapsodic about how great their marriage is gonna be once he's allowed back in the house. Ye gads. 

Show needs to learn to raise the stakes for these people:

Jack goes off the rails because of a past two-month dating relationship from 20 years ago? Er....let's try again. How about Rebecca chooses to go on tour with a former love of her life who has real connections in the music biz? Make this guy a viable threat. Not some dumb tool who goes away with one punch.

Jack's big danger streak is that he plans to pilfer some cash from a bartender who works for a goodfella but is so stupid he leaves the cash drawer open to answer the phone? Oh, come on. To avoid audience eyeroll: have Jack be so desperate he brings a gun. Hell, have his quick money scheme be a little more sinister or original. I know this isn't breaking bad, but please, that was old and tired and beyond stupid.

How about Rebecca resent Kevin for apparently having an easily acquired acting career? Or really struggling with jealousy of her daughter's singing talent? Those would be human and interesting conflicts.

Jack gets toasted and drives, but there's no payoff for that set up other than making sure Rebecca sees him drunk? How about he actually hurts someone or Rebecca gets so fed up with him she kicks him out of the club? 

The show isn't going to get us sobbing unless it figures out how to raise the stakes in an interesting, but realistic way so that we come to empathize with extraordinary people in ordinary circumstances. Soppy, stupid monologues and cheeseball connections aren't going to cut it.

But it doesn't want to be gritty. It doesn't want to be real. It hopes to douse its weaknesses with awful, overplayed tropes and ear-bleed emo guitar overlays. And the pathetic thing is how this show keeps getting accolades when it's so clearly lazy. Even the much-mocked Bachelor manages more genuine moments. And that's sad.

By the way, hello, my name is potatoradio and I'm a poet/novelist with a day job. I find it therapeutic to play Statler/Waldorf to this show because it helps my own critiquing skills to deconstruct what's not working for me. I know the loneliness and pain that comes from having a dream and creative urge that doesn't match up with a living wage. But, guess what, Rebecca? It's actually not the end of the world to have to nourish your talent in small, stolen bits of time. Why can't you write songs with your kids? Why can't you show an interest in current music or take them to concerts? Make it work, honey. That'll get us rooting for you more than the usual boo-hooing about being a housewife with no identity. 

[Trooper York]

I don't think this show is going to be very good next season. They have painted themselves into a corner with the final episode.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, potatoradio said:

Why can't you write songs with your kids? Why can't you show an interest in current music or take them to concerts? Make it work, honey. That'll get us rooting for you more than the usual boo-hooing about being a housewife with no identity. 

That would've helped me a lot.  Jack's "When Harry Met Sally" copycat speech said he loved that she walked out on a blind date because she 'had to sing'.  The speech worked for the movie because the things Harry loved about Sally were annoying things that defined the character across the movie.  But Rebecca has not been shown to love to sing really, she never sings to the kids or anything.  And her 'need to sing' was RIDICULOUS to Jack the night before.  He literally called it ridiculous.  Then the next morning it's what he loves about her?  

The fact that she has no friends or life is kind of pathetic writing.  It's an ensemble show but they've had 18 episodes.  That's about the air time for 6 feature length movies.  They could easily have 5 well-developed characters in the playing time of 6 movies.  

[ProudMary]

48 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

That would've helped me a lot.  Jack's "When Harry Met Sally" copycat speech said he loved that she walked out on a blind date because she 'had to sing'.  The speech worked for the movie because the things Harry loved about Sally were annoying things that defined the character across the movie.  But Rebecca has not been shown to love to sing really, she never sings to the kids or anything.  And her 'need to sing' was RIDICULOUS to Jack the night before.  He literally called it ridiculous.  Then the next morning it's what he loves about her?  

The fact that she has no friends or life is kind of pathetic writing.  It's an ensemble show but they've had 18 episodes.  That's about the air time for 6 feature length movies.  They could easily have 5 well-developed characters in the playing time of 6 movies.  

We did see at least one instance where she was singing and playing the piano in the nursery when the Big Three were infants.  (And she took all sorts of flak here for that because playing the piano was going to wake the babies.)  

[Sandman]

On 2016-11-05 at 10:07 AM, Tiger said:

I'm sure its difficult to find a true mini me that can also act ala Bailee Madison/Ginny Goodwin, but at least cast someone who could conceivably grow up to resemble the adult actor.  

The low point of this kind of casting for me is The Human Stain: Wentworth Miller grows up to be Anthony Hopkins? Really? In what universe does that happen? Maybe I'm desensitized, but I'm mostly okay with the resemblances between the Big Three as little people and their adult selves. Although the high school jock version of Kevin seems fairly distant from his kid-version and his adult self, so...

[chocolatine]

3 hours ago, Sandman said:

The low point of this kind of casting for me is The Human Stain: Wentworth Miller grows up to be Anthony Hopkins? Really? In what universe does that happen?

That made as much sense as the book itself made sense. That character was supposed to be a very light-skinned black man who in his 20s decides to live as a white Jewish man to avoid discrimination in academia. I still don't know what Philip Roth was thinking with that one.

[hippielamb]

On 3/17/2017 at 9:21 AM, laurakaye said:

I watched part of a video where the cast apologizes for making us cry.  I made it halfway before I turned it off.  It was very cutely produced, with the cast pretending to flub their lines, laughing at their cleverness, complimenting each other's previous acting roles, saying things like "our show was renewed for another season mere hours after the first episode premiered."  Wow - those are some mighty big inflated egos.  And I realize that part of their job is to promote the heck out of the show, but that video was over-the-top twee and inside-jokey.  If I didn't feel like crying before I saw that, I certainly don't after seeing that video.  I truly do not need the cast of the show to pretend to be sorry for making us cry when that's exactly what they are aiming for - at the expense of good writing and convincing storylines.

I honestly don't think I would have such issues with "This is Us" were it not for the sledgehammer approach to "THIS is how you will feel!  And if you don't feel JUST LIKE THIS, you are doing it WRONG!"  If the show had aired, with the catchy concept of the three siblings and a good, solid family story, I likely would've watched, decided it wasn't for me, and moved on.  It's the relentless promoting that makes me hate-watch at this point.  I guess that love it or hate it, the show is getting people to tune in.  Maybe it's all part of some grand master plan?

I have cried once with this show, and that was when William died. The PR that you will cry every episode is ridiculous. 

On 3/17/2017 at 8:47 PM, luna1122 said:

I don't think she was wrong to leave, and I also don't think she would have been wrong to stay. I don't think yours is an unpopular opinion. More posters seemed appalled by the idea that she'd finish the gig or the tour after she got hit on. I think that would have been no big deal either. But I also think she left more because jack was being a drunken asshole than anything. 

Also an UO, probably: I don't really think Ben is a skeeve. Hitting on married people isn't admirable and cheating sucks, but he apparently had feelings for Rebecca and he took a shot. He stopped when she shut him down. If he was one of our protagonists, instead of the enemy of perfect jack, some would cheer him on for fighting for love. 

Honestly, I thought Rebecca overreacted after the attempted kiss. He apologized. It could have been an awkward moment but she made it into a big deal. Though I think her insecurity about singing again led to think he only wanted her in the band for romantic reasons. 

18 hours ago, Mrs. DuRona said:

I have a new unpopular opinion.  I am kind of done with Randall being the center of attention.  As an adoptee myself, I was intrigued by his story, but it has dominated so much, everyone else is just "there".  I want more of Kate and Kevin, and Rebecca.  At the end of the latest episode, I found myself actually annoyed that he was on the screen for all of 2 minutes, haha.  Someone had once mentioned they felt like the show was originally about Randall, and somehow they wound up turning it into the show we have now, and I would totally believe that.  I just hope next season we get a little more from everyone else.  I would be fine with Randall getting a backseat for a while.

Randall is my favourite but I agree it's uneven. The scene where he made a big deal about quitting his job was too much. It was nice to see him incorporate some of William's thinking into his life but geesh I was rolling my eyes at his little speech. 

[laurakaye]

22 hours ago, potatoradio said:

After being unable to take one more word of depressing news, my PMS-riddled self watched both The Bachelor and TIU......

@potatoradio, I kind of want to marry this entire post and have its babies.  I loved it that much.  I would totally monologue here, but I haven't had coffee yet.

 

17 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

The fact that she has no friends or life is kind of pathetic writing.  It's an ensemble show but they've had 18 episodes.  That's about the air time for 6 feature length movies.  They could easily have 5 well-developed characters in the playing time of 6 movies.  

What came straight to my mind is what a bitch she was at the pool, talking to the mom of Randall's friend.  And when she wouldn't shut up at the bar watching the Superbowl.  No wonder she doesn't have friends.  I'm not sure why the writers are drawing her in this light.  Perhaps we'll find out in season two.  Or maybe we just weren't paying close enough attention.

Edited March 19, 2017 by laurakaye

[Lady Calypso]

Yeah, I'm also now tired of the "every episode will make you cry" media galavant that they're going on. I have cried a total of two times: once with Jack's urn, and William's death. I'm blaming everyone part of the plan to brag about the show's ability to make the audience feel emotions or something. They're bragging, and I hate when shows brag. I really did love the show at first, and I still like it. But if they continue down this whole "crying media train" promotion that they've really amped up the last few months, then I am going to have to start looking elsewhere for shows. Now they're going to try 20x harder to make these emotional moments, so now the appeal is gone. The intent is being forced and now I don't really care. 

[HeyThere83]

I saw somewhere that someone gave Justin a tissue box to sign at PaleyFest last night. And of course, the TIU fanpage tweeted out that it was the biggest turnout ever at Paleyfest!!!!

[Tiger]

i honestly think will be very lucky if it follows the trajectory of a Lost or Desperate Housewives and remains a hit even after peaking culturally and in the ratings in early season two.

I think this show is more likely however to follow the trajectory of a Glee.

[SlackerInc]

9 hours ago, Lady Calypso said:

Yeah, I'm also now tired of the "every episode will make you cry" media galavant that they're going on. I have cried a total of two times: once with Jack's urn, and William's death. I'm blaming everyone part of the plan to brag about the show's ability to make the audience feel emotions or something. They're bragging, and I hate when shows brag. I really did love the show at first, and I still like it. But if they continue down this whole "crying media train" promotion that they've really amped up the last few months, then I am going to have to start looking elsewhere for shows. Now they're going to try 20x harder to make these emotional moments, so now the appeal is gone. The intent is being forced and now I don't really care. 

Can't you just stop following the people promoting it and just watch the show?  I use Twitter and Facebook and I never see any of this stuff.

[HeyThere83]

Sometimes even if you don't follow them, you will see it because others you do follow retweet the stuff or like it and you see it in your timeline. All I have to do is open Microsoft Edge or Yahoo and I see the dumb headlines.

[Lady Calypso]

11 minutes ago, HeyThere83 said:

Sometimes even if you don't follow them, you will see it because others you do follow retweet the stuff or like it and you see it in your timeline. All I have to do is open Microsoft Edge or Yahoo and I see the dumb headlines.

Yeah, exactly. I don't use Twitter that much so I never see it there, but it's some of Facebook, since some of the TV-related pages I follow post all kinds of stuff, as well as other websites I venture to, including here. I also have Facebook friends who share that kind of stuff, including my own mother, who doesn't hesitate to share what she finds with me on Facebook as well as letting me know over the phone. So it's not easy to avoid this stuff, especially in today's society. I actually applaud people who can stay away from this stuff. 

[SlackerInc]

I have found it difficult to stay away from political headlines (I used to be a politics junkie for many years, then have been trying to go cold turkey since the election).  But TIU stories?  Easy peasy.

[methodwriter85]

12 hours ago, Tiger said:

i honestly think will be very lucky if it follows the trajectory of a Lost or Desperate Housewives and remains a hit even after peaking culturally and in the ratings in early season two.

I think this show is more likely however to follow the trajectory of a Glee.

What's crazy to me is that the show runners specifically requested to have 18-episode seasons because they wanted a tighter story, but it feels like everything post-Christmas episode has been kind of just scrapped together. The Sophie story in particular just feels so out of left field. Something just smacks of re-writes and scramblng.

I don't think the show will collapse as fast as Glee did, although even then it still managed 6 seasons.

[luna1122]

10 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

Can't you just stop following the people promoting it and just watch the show?  I use Twitter and Facebook and I never see any of this stuff.

I don't follow any of them and I rarely bother with twitter, but it all shows up in my FB feed from entertainment sites. I don't even read them (most of the time), but just the headlines are enough to make me roll my eyes as I scroll past. As do all the 'All the feels!!' and 'I had to change my clothes after watching TIU because tears and snot' posts all over my feed.

[potatoradio]

On 3/19/2017 at 11:17 AM, laurakaye said:

I kind of want to marry this entire post and have its babies.  I loved it that much.  I would totally monologue here, but I haven't had coffee yet.

Ha - thanks! I will have to see whether my marriage to PennBen's post is an open one. I don't think I discussed it in my hazy rush of lurve and romance. ;)

[neuromom]

On 3/19/2017 at 9:27 AM, Lady Calypso said:

Yeah, I'm also now tired of the "every episode will make you cry" media galavant that they're going on. I have cried a total of two times: once with Jack's urn, and William's death. I'm blaming everyone part of the plan to brag about the show's ability to make the audience feel emotions or something. They're bragging, and I hate when shows brag. I really did love the show at first, and I still like it. But if they continue down this whole "crying media train" promotion that they've really amped up the last few months, then I am going to have to start looking elsewhere for shows. Now they're going to try 20x harder to make these emotional moments, so now the appeal is gone. The intent is being forced and now I don't really care. 

Right on! I'm sick of the bragging. It really is old. I found TIU by accident and binge watched the first half season. It took me two episodes to get hooked enough to watch the others. But then my interest dropped, and I never came back after hiatus. But..I do get all the updates via FB friends , who are apparently "in tears" every episode! The only times I've cried are when the third baby died in the first episode. And when Toby suffered his heart attack (apparently he lived!).  

i may be the only one NOT watching, who follows the boards to specifically find out when Jack dies. I MAY watch that. And I assumed it would be the season finale, but apparently it wasn't..so they are going to drag all this into another season. 

Im Of the opinion that this series may have been better as a "short run" series, because the melodrama and "emotional blackmail" is going to get old..FAST..for some of us anyway. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by neuromom

[OtterMommy]

38 minutes ago, neuromom said:

Im Of the opinion that this series may have been better as a "short run" series, because the melodrama and "emotional blackmail" is going to get old..FAST..for some of us anyway. 

When it was clear that this was going to be a short run series, I was a little bummed...mostly because it just sort of feels strange to me to have a show done for the season in March.  However, now I'm glad that's the case.   When your season finale feels like a filler episode, you have a problem.

Speaking of this, one of my friends is in the "I cry every single episode!" camp--which, I mean, hey...whatever floats your boat.  Anyway, she was beyond disappointed with the finale, but she saw it in a way I hadn't considered.  She said it felt like the season ended with the previous episode...and then they showed the first episode of the 2nd season.  And, she's right...Moonshadow definitely felt much more like a season premiere than a season finale (granted, it wouldn't have been a GOOD season premiere, but probably a better premiere than finale..)

[neuromom]

15 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

When it was clear that this was going to be a short run series, I was a little bummed...mostly because it just sort of feels strange to me to have a show done for the season in March.  However, now I'm glad that's the case.   When your season finale feels like a filler episode, you have a problem.

Speaking of this, one of my friends is in the "I cry every single episode!" camp--which, I mean, hey...whatever floats your boat.  Anyway, she was beyond disappointed with the finale, but she saw it in a way I hadn't considered.  She said it felt like the season ended with the previous episode...and then they showed the first episode of the 2nd season.  And, she's right...Moonshadow definitely felt much more like a season premiere than a season finale (granted, it wouldn't have been a GOOD season premiere, but probably a better premiere than finale..)

Thats an interesting perspective! I do know, based on my FB feed, that any of my friends (male and female) love the show. And shed lots of tears. I'm in the minority of my friends that DONT watch regularly. (And I have a friend who is a cousin of Chris Sullivan /Toby) Meanwhile, I have only one friend left who joins me on my postings of Grimm, which of course is pretty much "on hospice" at this point. (Miss you on that thread) 

[OtterMommy]

21 minutes ago, neuromom said:

Thats an interesting perspective! I do know, based on my FB feed, that any of my friends (male and female) love the show. And shed lots of tears. I'm in the minority of my friends that DONT watch regularly. (And I have a friend who is a cousin of Chris Sullivan /Toby) Meanwhile, I have only one friend left who joins me on my postings of Grimm, which of course is pretty much "on hospice" at this point. (Miss you on that thread) 

I will say that TIU is the one show that I'm pretty sure every single one of my female friends (but none of my male friends--and, for the love of all that is holy, NOT my husband!) watch and....I'm the only who isn't completely head over heels for it.  As I said upthread, I do think it is a "good" show, but not a great one.  It's also a show that has fallen in my estimation.  

That being said, I am also frequently reminded that I'm an overly critical person (let me tell you, my book club just LOVES me...she says, with sarcasm dripping from every word...) and I know that I think about shows maybe--well, not maybe--a bit more deeply than my friends.  Still, I just feel like there are some real red flags starting to pop up with this one....and it makes me nervous.  I would really like nothing more than for this show to get its act together.

(And I miss you all on that other thread as well....but hopefully Mission Control will be picked up and we'll meet up again there next season....)

[potatoradio]

On 3/19/2017 at 8:49 PM, SlackerInc said:

Can't you just stop following the people promoting it and just watch the show?  I use Twitter and Facebook and I never see any of this stuff.

Trust me - I try! I don't use Twitter or Facebook and don't read/click/seek out the opinions of showrunners or actors or anything. I don't watch the post mortems that air right after the show. But, even given all of that, there's no missing the heavyhandedness and anvils of the previews (of the show or of the after-show self-congratulatory fest). I will say that if I were completely in a bubble and immune to all previews, reviews, talk, etc., and somehow all of the relentless fawning missed me, I'd still think the quality of this show is dubious, but I wouldn't be so irritated and the board would likely be spared a ranting post or two or six. ;)

[OtterMommy]

On 3/19/2017 at 6:49 PM, SlackerInc said:

Can't you just stop following the people promoting it and just watch the show?  I use Twitter and Facebook and I never see any of this stuff.

Honestly, I don't want to stop following friends just because of a TV show.  

Now, as for media outlets (including the TIU official social media account), I don't think it is too much to ask to hold off on their "recaps" (whether it is an actual recap or just a spoiling headline) until after the show has finished airing on the west cost.  Of the shows that I watch, TIU is the worst when it comes to this....

[SlackerInc]

1 hour ago, potatoradio said:

Trust me - I try! I don't use Twitter or Facebook and don't read/click/seek out the opinions of showrunners or actors or anything. I don't watch the post mortems that air right after the show. But, even given all of that, there's no missing the heavyhandedness and anvils of the previews (of the show or of the after-show self-congratulatory fest).

All I can tell you is that there is missing it.  I miss it all the time.  Like I said, I've only seen one preview for this show, ever: the one that went so viral on Facebook before the first episode aired.

[maddie965]

My turn. I love Toby. I once had a Toby in my life and I loved him. I wish I could have another one now.

My point: everyone says that Toby is bad because he doesn't respect Kate's boundaries. But hey, are boundaries really that great? Not from my point of view. When you're shy, or you have self-esteem issues (for any reason, not just weight), sometimes you create all those rules for yourself. And you follow those rules for so long, you start believing the rules represent who you are. And then you build walls so thick and so high, they become impossible to destroy. Unless someone helps you, or grabs you and helps you jump over the wall. I was very shy until my late twenties. So I said to myself I didn't like to dance. I didn't like to sing. I didn't like boys very much. I didn't need friends, or attention, or anything really. Just to be left alone.

Then this boy comes along and disrespects all of my boundaries. He takes me to the dance floor, and I love it. He makes me sing at karaoke parties, and I love it. He takes me to trips, introduces me to a lot of people, and I love it. He encourages me to get a better job, one where I can shine, and I do it. He tells me that my rules are stupid all the time. I protest a lot. "Don't make me do what I don't want to!" "Hey, boundaries!" And he ignores me, bless him. Until I realize all he did was uncover everything I already was, but didn't know I was.

My point: when Toby disrespects Kate's old boundaries, he's doing her a HUGE favor. She needs to break all the walls she has built for herself, and she can't do it alone. Toby is helping her destroy all of them. Of course he could be a little more gentle or subtle about it. And sometimes he does go to far (football episode, spa). But it doesn't matter because, in the end, no one ever did for Kate what he's doing for her. Do they belong together? Not sure. Will Kate be a happier person because of this relationship? I'm sure of it.

I hope we get to see them together for a long time.

Edited March 23, 2017 by maddie965

[luna1122]

I guess I get what you're saying about Kate and her boundaries and maybe needing to be pushed out of them, but that's a slippery slope. She might appreciate some of that now, it might get her to try new things that might in turn make her happier, but if Toby just thinks he gets to override her own opinions and thoughts because he knows better, that gets ugly, imo. My hackles rose a little just seeing the words 'he made me' and 'he tells me my rules are stupid'....i'm happy that worked for you, but it would make me blind with rage. I'd shut that shit down so fast his head would spin off. I don't think Toby is a bad man, I don't think many here think that, and I think he (and the writers) do think he's doing what's best for Kate, and as long as she actually thinks so too, well, good for them. I just wish they were a little more subtle about it, but I wish they were more subtle about everything.

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

I guess I get what you're saying about Kate and her boundaries and maybe needing to be pushed out of them, but that's a slippery slope. She might appreciate some of that now, it might get her to try new things that might in turn make her happier, but if Toby just thinks he gets to override her own opinions and thoughts because he knows better, that gets ugly, imo. My hackles rose a little just seeing the words 'he made me' and 'he tells me my rules are stupid'....i'm happy that worked for you, but it would make me blind with rage. I'd shut that shit down so fast his head would spin off. I don't think Toby is a bad man, I don't think many here think that, and I think he (and the writers) do think he's doing what's best for Kate, and as long as she actually thinks so too, well, good for them. I just wish they were a little more subtle about it, but I wish they were more subtle about everything.

I think there is a big difference between "being in your shell" and having boundaries.  If it is a case of Kate being in a shell--which I'll agree it is at times--then yay for Toby for getting her out of shell.  However, boundaries are a completely different animal.  A boundary is where you end and everyone else begins and it is the foundation of self-actualization.   Let me see if I can explain this with examples.

Kate being in her shell:  She loves to sing but only sings in the shower because she's afraid to sing in public.  Toby arranges a very "safe" way for her to perform, which helps her self-confidence.

Kate having boundaries: From the moment Kate met Toby, she was upfront with how losing weight was her #1 priority (which is actually pretty clear for a boundary).  Toby agrees to that and then sabotages her through either passive aggressive comments about their food choices or going off the diet he swore he'd follow for her (which is a problem in itself, but that's a different post) and telling her that her priorities are wrong.

-or-

Kate being very clear that watching the Steelers on TV with her dad('s ashes) is something that is very important to her and she just really needs this thing...and Toby completely steamrolls it.

So, two different things.  And I'm all for people breaking out of their shell, but we all need our boundaries.

[ShadowFacts]

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

I guess I get what you're saying about Kate and her boundaries and maybe needing to be pushed out of them, but that's a slippery slope. She might appreciate some of that now, it might get her to try new things that might in turn make her happier, but if Toby just thinks he gets to override her own opinions and thoughts because he knows better, that gets ugly, imo. My hackles rose a little just seeing the words 'he made me' and 'he tells me my rules are stupid'....i'm happy that worked for you, but it would make me blind with rage. I'd shut that shit down so fast his head would spin off. I don't think Toby is a bad man, I don't think many here think that, and I think he (and the writers) do think he's doing what's best for Kate, and as long as she actually thinks so too, well, good for them. I just wish they were a little more subtle about it, but I wish they were more subtle about everything.

There's encouragement, then there's pushiness, then there's somebody knowing what's best for you.  I feel like Toby has been slipping down the slope.  Maybe he can revert back to encouragement. 

[SlackerInc]

23 hours ago, maddie965 said:

My turn. I love Toby. I once had a Toby in my life and I loved him. I wish I could have another one now.

My point: everyone says that Toby is bad because he doesn't respect Kate's boundaries. But hey, are boundaries really that great? Not from my point of view. When you're shy, or you have self-esteem issues (for any reason, not just weight), sometimes you create all those rules for yourself. And you follow those rules for so long, you start believing the rules represent who you are. And then you build walls so thick and so high, they become impossible to destroy. Unless someone helps you, or grabs you and helps you jump over the wall. I was very shy until my late twenties. So I said to myself I didn't like to dance. I didn't like to sing. I didn't like boys very much. I didn't need friends, or attention, or anything really. Just to be left alone.

Then this boy comes along and disrespects all of my boundaries. He takes me to the dance floor, and I love it. He makes me sing at karaoke parties, and I love it. He takes me to trips, introduces me to a lot of people, and I love it. He encourages me to get a better job, one where I can shine, and I do it. He tells me that my rules are stupid all the time. I protest a lot. "Don't make me do what I don't want to!" "Hey, boundaries!" And he ignores me, bless him. Until I realize all he did was uncover everything I already was, but didn't know I was.

This is a very, very interesting point.  You've gotten a couple responses that are along the lines of trying to parse where exactly the fine line can be drawn.  But this is an impossible and fruitless task, because there is no one line.  It depends on the person.  That extends even to stuff that is on the boundary of rape or sexual assault.  A lot of times women who draw a very strict line about what is "rapey" just assume this is the line for every woman.  But there are women who really do want the man to "take charge".  This is not just because they are beaten down by the patriarchy or something, but perhaps for deep primal reasons that some feminists find uncomfortable to recognize, or just out of being shy and not wanting to stick their necks out and risk rejection or humiliation.

Of course, from the man's side this makes the terrain very risky.  Pick the wrong woman to get too aggressive with, and you may find yourself in hot water.  But hanging back and being unaggressive, unless you are way above the median in attractiveness, could lead you to being lonely and unfulfilled.  Not an easy minefield to navigate.

[Katy M]

21 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

Kate having boundaries: From the moment Kate met Toby, she was upfront with how losing weight was her #1 priority (which is actually pretty clear for a boundary).  Toby agrees to that and then sabotages her through either passive aggressive comments about their food choices or going off the diet he swore he'd follow for her (which is a problem in itself, but that's a different post) and telling her that her priorities are wrong.

I don't think Toby ever told her her priorities were wrong.  He just decided that HE didn't want to lose weight.  He said that he would eat diet food while with her, but she is the one that nixed that idea.  If she can't be with someone who isn't dieting also that is fine.  But, she was the one that kept going back and forth on whether she could handle it.

[OtterMommy]

2 hours ago, Katy M said:

I don't think Toby ever told her her priorities were wrong.  He just decided that HE didn't want to lose weight.  He said that he would eat diet food while with her, but she is the one that nixed that idea.  If she can't be with someone who isn't dieting also that is fine.  But, she was the one that kept going back and forth on whether she could handle it.

There were times when he said he just wanted to have a "fat" night and he was tired of always eating healthy (implying "with her.")  A lot of this happened before he started cheating on his diet, but it was there.

It's also not the only example of Toby violating Kate's boundaries.

[Katy M]

14 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

There were times when he said he just wanted to have a "fat" night and he was tired of always eating healthy (implying "with her.")  A lot of this happened before he started cheating on his diet, but it was there.

It's also not the only example of Toby violating Kate's boundaries.

I don't really see that as a violation of her boundaries as his not wanting to be on a diet.  And again, she's the one who needs to decide if she can date someone who is not as strict about diet as she wants.  If anything her trying to get him to diet would be a violation of his boundaries, since she would be trying to modify his behavior instead of the other way around.

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-20 at 2:43 AM, methodwriter85 said:

I don't think the show will collapse as fast as Glee did, although even then it still managed 6 seasons.

I'll be glad if the show doesn't self-destruct as fast and as thoroughly as Heroes, honestly.

[OtterMommy]

44 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I don't really see that as a violation of her boundaries as his not wanting to be on a diet.  And again, she's the one who needs to decide if she can date someone who is not as strict about diet as she wants.  If anything her trying to get him to diet would be a violation of his boundaries, since she would be trying to modify his behavior instead of the other way around.

It's not a violation of boundaries if he doesn't want to be on a diet.  It is a violation when she is very clear that it is her #1 priority and he says and does things that undermine that  (such as wanting to have a "fat night").  Actually, him saying he wasn't going to diet and her saying that, if that was the case, then she couldn't be with him because she needed to live her life a certain way was probably the healthiest moment in their relationship.

Anyway, I brought this up as example of violating boundaries vs. helping someone break out of their shell--I actually didn't mean to revive this argument.  So, I'm guessing my example of the Steelers game was probably a better choice for what I was trying to say than this one.

[luna1122]

12 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

It depends on the person.

It does.  I did respond somewhat thru my own lens in my response, but this all depends on Kate. I'm unclear whether or not we've seen Kate as someone who wants to be dominated in any way, but I'm also unclear that the writers are even aware it could be perceived this way. I think they just think Toby is a big lovable lug who thinks he gets what's best for Kate, and goes all out for it with grand 'romantic' gestures. I'm not sure it's occurred to them that some people might find some of his behavior questionable.

[SlackerInc]

21 hours ago, luna1122 said:

It does.  I did respond somewhat thru my own lens in my response, but this all depends on Kate. I'm unclear whether or not we've seen Kate as someone who wants to be dominated in any way, but I'm also unclear that the writers are even aware it could be perceived this way. I think they just think Toby is a big lovable lug who thinks he gets what's best for Kate, and goes all out for it with grand 'romantic' gestures. I'm not sure it's occurred to them that some people might find some of his behavior questionable.

That may have been true at the beginning.  But there's been such a widespread backlash against Toby (including among professional critics) that it's hard to imagine they haven't "gotten the memo" by now.

But I would be fascinated to see some kind of scientific poll to determine how widespread the anti-Toby animus is among all the millions of people who faithfully tune in every week.  I have a hunch this viewpoint may be overrepresented among a vocal minority.  Not that the minority is wrong, especially for their own "woke" perspective; but I just have a hard time believing Hollywood has been spending all these years pushing these male characters who are persistent and pushy to the point of seeming stalkery or domineering to a majority of the average women of America.  Look at the literally phenomenal success of Fifty Shades of Grey.  Its origin in fanfic suggests to me that if anything, liberal Hollywood may have underestimated the appeal of scenarios that many people (and I'd certainly include myself in this case) would find appallingly retrograde.

So then you get into a very thorny question: can women actually be wrong to want men who don't treat them as egalitarian partners with equal agency, and to thrill to the depiction of such suitors on screen?  Or is it every woman's right to have her own, perhaps "old-fashioned", preferences when it comes to romance?  I can see both sides there--hence, "thorny".

Edited March 25, 2017 by SlackerInc
Italics are good

[Crs97]

My UO is that I think Toby is a hoot.  Do I think his sexual innuendos getting tiring?  Yes, but I would have shut them down.  It's hard to rag too much on a guy for overstepping boundaries when his girlfriend stalked his ex to the point of getting a job offer from her.

[luna1122]

Ha, Crs97. You're right, Kate ain't so good with the boundaries herself.

I think whatever turns you on or makes you happy, as long as nobody else is getting hurt--you know, go for it. I find the whole 50 shades thing squicky and inexplicable (tho honestly, I was just really more offended by how TERRIBLE the writing of that book is, and that it made so much money despite it. I write much better erotica than that crap, but it's not bringing me in any $$, dammit), but if it's your thing, let your freak flag fly. If it works for Toby and Kate, so be it. No judgement, even if I do find it personally...well, not my thing. It DOES disturb me on some feminist level, but part of feminism is owning your  personal stuff and being yourself and making your choices. If your choice is a man to order you around and tell you he knows better than you and overstep conventional boundaries, if you actually like that and find some kind of fulfillment in it, and it doesn't actually damage you, then hey...you do you, girl. I don't think, tho, that the writers are really presenting this as some kind of dom thing. Just silly Kate not knowing what's good for her.

[OtterMommy]

In the 01.17 thread, @Winston9-DT3 said:

Quote

I like it when they clarify things in the media, though.  Sometimes they think something was clear within the show but some viewers didn't get it.  Why not clarify it?  It helps solve the debates that occur here and elsewhere.  Like some people thought the teen actors might've been portraying the triplets over age 21, which I think would've been kind of ridiculous.  

I agree that, if something was not clear in the show, there should be some sort of clarification.  In my opinion, that is not the problem--the problem is that it wasn't clear in the show in the first place.

As for all the after-episodes interviews and such--I have never actually watched one so I have no real opinion beyond this:  it shouldn't be necessary to watch these to be able to understand the show.  They aren't "a part of the show."  They are just a conversation with the actors about their experience filming it.  This may be fascinating to some and beyond boring to others, but it should have no effect on the episode.

[SlackerInc]

I don't watch any of that stuff for this show, but I do listen to "insider podcasts" for Better Call Saul and The Americans.  I would take a kind of middle ground and say that they definitely should not write the script and film the episode with the intention that "supplemental materials" will be necessary to fully understand it.  However, there can be cases where the production team just didn't get that something might be misunderstood by the general public, because they are too close to it.  I think it's then fair to say "whoa, whoops, what we meant was X".  (Therefore I don't believe in the strong version of "death of the author".)

For instance, let's say that Kevin and Randall were talking, and Kevin said some phrase that sounds superficially innocent, but which lights Twitter afire because it turns out it's a coded way for racists to say the N-word without saying it.  The pure, "death of the author, all interpretation has to be from just what's in the episode" school of thought would say "it's ambiguous and maybe it was an innocent mistake, but we have to consider the possibility that this is a hint or a clue that Kevin secretly reads Storm Front and hates black people".  I don't agree with that, and I think it's fair to give weight to statements from the writers and producers of "whoa, whoa, WHOA: we did not know anything about this, it's just a coincidence, an innocent mistake: Kevin is not sympathetic to the KKK, we promise!".

[MaryPatShelby]

On 3/15/2017 at 7:31 PM, pennben said:

From an interview with Mandy & Milo on the finale:

Will America forgive Jack??????? First, let me state:  hahahahahahahahahahahahahah! <breathe> heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee! <breathe, wipe tear away> Whoooooooooooo!  The interviewer is worried that America is mad a Jack?! Unbelievable.  Then Ventimiglia's answer, folks are going to be crushed....destroyed even, but hopefully we've found a way to give them some reason not to hate Jack.

Are you freaking kidding me??!!!  Almost no one hates Jacks nor blames him for anything, it's apparently solely Rebecca's fault that all of this has happened.  If there is some sort of bubble in which these folks live and are worried they may have to try to "redeem" Jack next season because this episode made America mad at him, it is incomprehensible to me what this show will look like. 

I think they need to figure out how to start presenting Rebecca so that 90% of the audience doesn't hate everything about her, because I really don't believe that that is the intention of the showrunners/writers or what they think is actually happening,  I hope they spend some time in the off season and see how folks are seeing Rebecca outside whatever bubble they are in.  I'm not even sure they can fix things at this point now that there's a season worth of hate built up for Rebecca on this show.

So much this ^^^.  The Rebecca hate here just astounds me, as well as the Miguel hate. In fact, it seems like the only thing viewers aren't mad at Rebecca about is marrying Miguel; that seems to be all on him.

My UO is that the characters live lives outside of what we see on our TV.  For example, someone above said that Rebecca never sang to her kids.  But really...how do we know that?  Have we seen every minute of their infancy/toddlerhood?  Would we want to?  There are some important things we need to see, but every detail would be excruciatingly boring, and I personally have to believe that those small details happen outside of our viewing.

[Sandman]

On 2017-03-26 at 3:24 PM, OtterMommy said:

I agree that, if something was not clear in the show, there should be some sort of clarification.  In my opinion, that is not the problem--the problem is that it wasn't clear in the show in the first place.

As for all the after-episodes interviews and such--I have never actually watched one so I have no real opinion beyond this:  it shouldn't be necessary to watch these to be able to understand the show.  They aren't "a part of the show."  They are just a conversation with the actors about their experience filming it.  This may be fascinating to some and beyond boring to others, but it should have no effect on the episode.

I agree; I think DVD commentary tracks and episode commentaries are one thing, and it's sometimes interesting to get a "making of" perspective from the writers and performers, but I never want to see this kind of extraneous commentary become an explanation for or clarification of what happens on screen. Because if the author or performer of a piece needs to explain or clarify it, then somebody didn't do her or his job. One of the many (... many) things that horrified me about Grey's Anatomy from the first season was Shonda Rhimes's blog about the show. This seemed like the worst kind of "telling, not showing" flaw of amateurish writing. Don't write me a note after the show and tell me why Denny is so awesome! Show me Denny doing awesome stuff. If you can't do that, you're not doing your job.

[laurakaye]

On 3/23/2017 at 8:13 AM, luna1122 said:

I guess I get what you're saying about Kate and her boundaries and maybe needing to be pushed out of them, but that's a slippery slope. She might appreciate some of that now, it might get her to try new things that might in turn make her happier, but if Toby just thinks he gets to override her own opinions and thoughts because he knows better, that gets ugly, imo. My hackles rose a little just seeing the words 'he made me' and 'he tells me my rules are stupid'....i'm happy that worked for you, but it would make me blind with rage. I'd shut that shit down so fast his head would spin off. I don't think Toby is a bad man, I don't think many here think that, and I think he (and the writers) do think he's doing what's best for Kate, and as long as she actually thinks so too, well, good for them. I just wish they were a little more subtle about it, but I wish they were more subtle about everything.

 

On 3/24/2017 at 11:42 AM, luna1122 said:

It does.  I did respond somewhat thru my own lens in my response, but this all depends on Kate. I'm unclear whether or not we've seen Kate as someone who wants to be dominated in any way, but I'm also unclear that the writers are even aware it could be perceived this way. I think they just think Toby is a big lovable lug who thinks he gets what's best for Kate, and goes all out for it with grand 'romantic' gestures. I'm not sure it's occurred to them that some people might find some of his behavior questionable.

Here's my issue with Toby pushing Kate outside of her comfort zone...it absolutely can be done in a loving, careful way, between two people that love and care about each other, and have some common ground (other than weight).  But I simply do not see, nor understand, the connection between Kate and Toby.  I haven't seen any evidence (other than when the two of them snuck off at Randall's house) that they have the hots for each other.  If Toby pushed Kate to sing, couldn't there have been a small scene where he says something like, "look, I love you and I know what you're going through.  Will you trust me?"  Anything to show that Kate was scared to sing, and Toby gently encouraged her, and she trusted him to catch her if she fell.  What I saw instead was Toby setting up one of his grand gestures and Kate not feeling it, even though she went from barely being heard to (predictably) singing like an angel.  I don't know if that's bad writing, or that the actors don't have chemistry, or a little of both.

Basically I don't see the love.  For me, that makes Toby less of a lovable lug than a pushy know-it-all.