Jump to content

Party of One: Unpopular Opinions About TV


  • Please log in to reply

28223 replies to this topic

#20131

corvus13

corvus13

    Stalker

Posted Jul 5, 2010 @ 8:25 PM

I feel that Sarah Jessica Parker looks like the sterotypical witch. Hooked nose, pointy chin, just put a wart on her and she only needs a pointy hat. Beautiful? Not even close. Grotesequely ugly.
  • 0

#20132

Myndela

Myndela

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 5, 2010 @ 9:07 PM

I feel that Sarah Jessica Parker looks like the sterotypical witch. Hooked nose, pointy chin, just put a wart on her and she only needs a pointy hat. Beautiful? Not even close. Grotesequely ugly.


A-freaking-men. I always felt like the odd one out, since she is so often portrayed on TV and in movies as this beautiful lady that all of these men want and will fight for, when I find her hideously disgustingly icky caca. Who cannot act for shit.
  • 0

#20133

pretoriantoo

pretoriantoo

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 5, 2010 @ 10:08 PM

It's not an UO that Torchwood would be better without Gwen but I think it'd be better without Jack as well, his character really only worked well on Doctor Who. I wish the new series of Torchwood was an entirely new team.

My Torchwood Unpopular Opinion of the day is that I really do like Gwen, she's the first leading lady that went against TV conventions on a Sci fi show: a well adjusted, married mother of one, who loves her job and enjoys her life.

I don't think I've ever seen one since ...well, ever. The closest thing to Gwen was Zoe from Firefly.

Edited by pretoriantoo, Jul 5, 2010 @ 10:10 PM.

  • 0

#20134

vimrod

vimrod

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:50 AM

Okay, I have to say it. Pushing Daisies bored my socks off. I did think that Anna Friel and Lee Pace were cute as all hell (the actors) but the characters were boring, the acting was too whimsical and aren't-I-cute, the storyline, the same, Kristin Chenowith was shrill and annoying and after a handful of episodes I was just glaze over with boredom.

In other unpopular opinion news, I preferred Dawson over Pacey in DC. I could understand the appeal of a Pacey character but I never really bought into the hype that Josh Jackson was the second coming of teen rebels with a heart. I've always found that the "bad" guy is the easier character to sell and still do (see also, Sawyer in Lost, Chuck Bass in Gossip Girl, Damon on Vampire Diaries, Dean on Supernatural etc). It's the thankless "good" guy with the boring dialogue, self-righteous morals and straight lines that have the harder sell and I always gravitate toward them. I really thought, for a main character, Dawson got screwed over a lot to prop up Pacey and Joey.
  • 0

#20135

Zif

Zif

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 1:55 AM

It's the thankless "good" guy with the boring dialogue, self-righteous morals and straight lines that have the harder sell


No, true enough. The Eric Northmans, Spikes and Damons of the world--and those are just the vampires!--invariably have the best lines and more opportunities to showcase their charisma and charm. Also, their edge--moral ambiguity at best, complete lack of scruples at worst--makes them more interesting as they tapdance the line between irredeemable and redeemable. The "bad boys" are also usually underdogs in the love triangle involving a girl and the "good guy," so we're more likely to sympathize with them on that basis.

By contrast, good guys, no matter how much they may struggle to do the right thing, are less interesting, because they can't be ambiguous in the same way. They can flirt with going darkside, but they'll never actually go through with it since if they did, they would no longer be the "hero" and worthy of centre stage. A good example of this is Angel in Season 2, whose "darkside" arc didn't last very long and was cut short in the most summary way possible. So there's no interesting "danger" there in the same way as there is with a "bad boy" character, whose loyalties are constantly in question.

However, I find with the "good" guys, that while they're positioned as "good," they're more often than not moralizing, self-righteous, patronizing, controlling douchebags. They may not be criminals, but they are not what I would consider "good people." Also, I find that when the "bad" guys fuck up or do not so nice things, it's because they're "bad," but when the "good" guys fuck up or do not so nice things, it's handwaved or ignored by the other characters because they're good "the rest of the time" or they "meant well." Ugh. (They're not all like that, of course; I quite like Stefan from TVD, who's managed to avoid falling into this trap.)

And yeah, I think Dawson falls into the above category. Even before Pacey/Joey was a glimmer in the writers' eyes, he was doing and saying some truly awful stuff. His awfulness easily preceded that ship.

Nor do I think it's fair to classify Pacey as the "bad boy." I mean, was he, really? The examples you gave--Spike, Chuck Bass, Sawyer, and Damon--have all done some truly terrible things: manipulation, lying, conning, sociopathic disregard for others, murder, mass murder, attempted rape, you name it. I don't pretend that Pacey was a saint, but can you really lump him in with them? He was only a "bad boy" in that he was a manwhore and an underachiever. He did have the sarcastic humour down pat, though, which is something he shares in common with all the other "bad boys" listed.

Here's another UO from me: I hate it when naturally dark-haired, pale actresses either tan or use-self-tanner and/or highlight or dye their naturally dark hair blonde. Not everyone is meant to be blonde! Not everyone looks better with a tan! I realize it probably has more to do with the Hollywood aesthetic (blonder and tanner is always better) than with the actress' own preference, but it just looks terrible--and aging--a lot of the time.

Edited by Zif, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:24 AM.

  • 0

#20136

Bridget1990

Bridget1990

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:34 AM

I'm kinda mixed when it comes to bad guys on TV sometime I love them and sometime I think they are overrated. I thought Pacey was a good character I just hated him with Joey.

I really thought, for a main character, Dawson got screwed over a lot to prop up Pacey and Joey.

I couldn't agree more and honestly I thought SL and screentime wise Dawson got the short end of stick comparing to Joey and Pacey :(.

Edited by Bridget1990, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:39 AM.

  • 0

#20137

The Done One

The Done One

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 5:09 AM

I feel that Sarah Jessica Parker looks like the sterotypical witch. Hooked nose, pointy chin, just put a wart on her and she only needs a pointy hat. Beautiful? Not even close. Grotesequely ugly.

A-freaking-men. I always felt like the odd one out, since she is so often portrayed on TV and in movies as this beautiful lady that all of these men want and will fight for, when I find her hideously disgustingly icky caca. Who cannot act for shit.

I've personally likened her to a horse.
  • 0

#20138

likeagrapefruit

likeagrapefruit

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 6:28 AM

Pretty much from season one it seemed to me that Pacey=good guy Dawson=bad guy, way before the Pacey/Joey arc. I think Dawson was the most self obsessed character in the history of television.
  • 0

#20139

AmberJamie

AmberJamie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 7:13 AM

Nor do I think it's fair to classify Pacey as the "bad boy." I mean, was he, really? The examples you gave--Spike, Chuck Bass, Sawyer, and Damon--have all done some truly terrible things: manipulation, lying, conning, sociopathic disregard for others, murder, mass murder, attempted rape, you name it. I don't pretend that Pacey was a saint, but can you really lump him in with them? He was only a "bad boy" in that he was a manwhore and an underachiever. He did have the sarcastic humour down pat, though, which is something he shares in common with all the other "bad boys" listed.


True, and I would remove both Pacey and Dean Winchester from the list of "bad boys". Neither one of them go out of their way to hurt someone else. Being overly snarky and witty does not a bad boy make.
  • 0

#20140

MsTaken

MsTaken

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 7:29 AM

Kristin Chenowith was shrill and annoying and after a handful of episodes I was just glaze over with boredom.


ITA with you here. I hated the character of Chuck (which isn't all that unpopular), but I actually thought Olive was every bit as irksome and poorly conceived a female character...and played by an actress who I find tolerable only in *very* small doses! And, as a general rule, I think Bryan Fuller's painfully self-conscious, look-at-how-adorable-and-precious-we-are 'whimsy' makes for shows that border on the unwatchable to me.

My UO is that Doctor Who, in any incarnation, is just an awful show.


Heh. I really wanted to like Dr. Who, but ITA with you here. Also, I'm not overly sensitive when it comes to feminism on TV, but something about these wide-eyed female companions who are so grateful to, enchanted by and worshipfully adoring of the wonderful male 'doctor' just makes me cringe every single time I catch an episode.

Edited by MsTaken, Jul 6, 2010 @ 7:30 AM.

  • 0

#20141

Beautiful Leah

Beautiful Leah

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 8:49 AM

While I agree with the opinion that "bad guys" are usually the easier character to "sell", I also think that it's mostly because the writers are generally lazy and equate "good" with "self-righteous" and "boring" (Dawson being a prime example of this). Personally, I'm always happy when I have a likeable character I can root for AND be intrigued by, but how often does this happen? One of the many reasons why Twin Peaks is my favorite show of all times is that Cooper and Audrey are both likeable AND fascinating (and, if we're being shallow, gorgeous).
My favorite character currently on television is Peggy from Mad Men, whom I find both complex and admirable.

Anyway, my Dawson's Creek UO would be that, while I didn't hate Pacey like I did Dawson and Joey, the only character I genuinely liked and felt for was Jen.

Edited by Beautiful Leah, Jul 6, 2010 @ 9:01 AM.

  • 0

#20142

marxfan

marxfan

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 8:59 AM

Here's another UO from me: I hate it when naturally dark-haired, pale actresses either tan or use-self-tanner and/or highlight or dye their naturally dark hair blonde. Not everyone is meant to be blonde! Not everyone looks better with a tan! I realize it probably has more to do with the Hollywood aesthetic (blonder and tanner is always better) than with the actress' own preference, but it just looks terrible--and aging--a lot of the time.


It's as if you read my mind, Zif. As a brunette, I get so sick and tired being told to get highlights, and that dark hair makes women look "harsh". That was the common critique of Jennifer Morrison's hair the first season of House. My UO is that I thought she looked beautiful S1 with dark brown hair. I became so used to it, that she looked odd with blonde hair (yes, I know JM is a natural blonde). And another thing, I think highlights are silly. As Mitch Hedberg put it, they serve no purpose but to show that "some strands of hair are more important than others". And most fake tans make women look like Oompa-Loompas. Ladies, a little variety, please! Whatever happened to "it takes all kinds"? Whatever happened to "being yourself"? For those who think women with pale skin/dark hair are unattractive, here are a list of names that might make you think twice:

Louise Brooks
Vivien Leigh
Elizabeth Taylor
Audrey Hepburn
Teresa Wright
Ava Gardner
Natalie Wood
Cyd Charisse
Jennifer Connelly
Sherilyn Fenn
Winona Ryder
Audrey Tautou
Anne Hathaway

Edited by marxfan, Jul 6, 2010 @ 9:01 AM.

  • 0

#20143

Beautiful Leah

Beautiful Leah

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 9:09 AM

"very true! fake tans look ridicoulous, and dark hair and pale skin are such an attractive combination!

Edited by Beautiful Leah, Jul 6, 2010 @ 9:10 AM.

  • 0

#20144

Zif

Zif

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 10:06 AM

As a brunette, I get so sick and tired being told to get highlights, and that dark hair makes women look "harsh".


Yes. You know who looks amazing on TV these days? Mary-Louise Parker, who's been rocking the uber-pale skin/very dark hair combination for some time now. She looks gorgeous, and just like Dita von Teese's current look, her paleness enhances her beauty.

Lauren Graham, now on Parenthood, has stuck with dark hair/pale skin (though not as pale as MLP's) for some time, and it's worked out pretty well for her look. She managed to resist the impulse to go crazy with self-tanner or hair dye (though she did have reddish highlights at some points) for all seven seasons of Gilmore Girls.

For the younger generation, Alison Brie--though she hasn't been on TV that long and could wind up dyeing her hair blonde and going all tan--has kept to the dark hair/pale skin look, too. Krysten Ritter--Jane on Breaking Bad, but she's been on other shows--has the black hair/pale skin look down as well. So all hope is not lost, heh.

(I urge all naturally pale, dark haired women out there "off screen" to work this combination as well. Dye/tan by all means if you like, but trust me, your natural look is very hot.)

Edited by Zif, Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:35 PM.

  • 0

#20145

Jack Shaftoe

Jack Shaftoe

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 11:41 AM

However, I find with the "good" guys, that while they're positioned as "good," they're more often than not moralizing, self-righteous, patronizing, controlling douchebags. They may not be criminals, but they are not what I would consider "good people." Also, I find that when the "bad" guys fuck up or do not so nice things, it's because they're "bad," but when the "good" guys fuck up or do not so nice things, it's handwaved or ignored by the other characters because they're good "the rest of the time" or they "meant well." Ugh.



Personally I think it's more often the other way around - generally the bad guys have carte blanche to do just about anything and the rest of the characters accept that very easily, since the baddies are expected to do that. And this really annoys me. The writers want to have it both ways - the bad guy needs to be, well, bad, but not overly so, in order for the good guys to interact with him and the viewers to like him. This can be done well in theory but usually it just leads to whitewashing of all sins and transgressions. Joss Whedon is especially guilty of this, in most other shows the bad boys/girls are at least more of annoying assholes than actual murderers which makes the good guys' irritating tendency to forgive them everything easier to swallow.

When a good guy screws up, the other characters might forgive him easily but the fandom has the annoying tendency to view relatively minor transgressions of those characters as worse than the terrible crimes of the bad guys. This can drive me absolutely crazy.

Here's another UO from me: I hate it when naturally dark-haired, pale actresses either tan or use-self-tanner and/or highlight or dye their naturally dark hair blonde. Not everyone is meant to be blonde! Not everyone looks better with a tan!


I concur, dark-hair and pale skin can be a ridiculously attractive combination.
  • 0

#20146

PepSinger

PepSinger

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 11:58 AM

While we're on Dawson's Creek UOs, mine is that I really liked Joey. Yes, she wasn't the great character in seasons 5 and 6 that she used to be, but I still liked her. I found her to be very relatable, and I thought Katie Holmes did a good job with her character. I thought Joey was placed in a rough, unforgiving situation of supposedly "coming between two friends," and there's just no way she could have won.

Edited by PepSinger, Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:00 PM.

  • 0

#20147

Ankai

Ankai

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:39 PM

I started watching Avatar: The Last Airbender as part of a deal where someone else would start watching a show that I was hyping. I guess that the deal did not necessarily require me to watch the entire series, but I guess that I figured that I deserved to watch the rest for getting myself into this in the first place.

I did not hate it, but I really do not understand why full grown adults like it so much without irony or drugs. Just because it may be slightly better than many kids shows does not make it enjoyable to a twenty-six year-old. There must be a less awkward way to incorporate mature themes into kids shows. The characters could be really really annoying in various ways for various reasons that were invariably insufficient. And a few of the episodes were horrible. Not horrible in comparison to the standard of a great show and, thus, still better than 99% of absolutely everything on TV; they were horrible. And while the ending was not as bad as the one for Battlestar Galactica, it was still pretty stupid.

As for the hubbub over the Whitewashing, I can get annoyed out of principle, but I cannot bring myself to get passionate about it. My parents are from Asia; the actual one, not some Fantasyland cartoon composite created by a couple of White Westerners (unless the guys are part Japanese and Filipino) and featuring characters who have a fifty-fifty chance of being voiced by an Asian actor. If someone makes a story about my family and turns them into White people, I will be upset. I will also be upset if someone makes a story about a real American (criminal?) who is of Asiatic stock, turns him into a White American character from the city of my birth, casts a guy from England to portray him, and then films it around my university just to rub my all-American face in it. With The Last Airbender, I just roll my eyes and try not to bother with it at all.
  • 0

#20148

thatsforsure

thatsforsure

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:43 PM

I'm not sure if this is unpopular, but I'm guessing it is. I found it ridiculous on Dawson's Creek in the first episode when Dawson and Pacey practically trip over themselves drooling to meet Jen when the immensely more attractive Joey is right next to them. I believe Jen was set up to be the female lead originally though.

Also it bugs me that in "Dawson's" Creek, Dawson is in less episodes than Joey and she has one whole episode to herself. I actually felt bad for Van de Beek when his show got hijacked by the Joey Show.
  • 0

#20149

McKay

McKay

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:51 PM

I am sick sick sick to death of TV characters being made fun of for having anything akin to religion. Guess what? You can believe in a god or gods and not be stupid - and for that matter, when it comes to Christianity, not be a right-wing headcase. No, really, I swear, you can. The one exception I can think of is Turk on Scrubs.

I'm not a religious person at all, but it still pisses me off.
  • 0

#20150

AmberJamie

AmberJamie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:55 PM

UO: The Bachelor and the Bachelorette should be canceled, especially after this year. Between the Justin Rego nonsense, the Jason-Molly-Melissa mess and the Jake-Vienna debacle ( I feel sorry for neither one, by the way; they both looked bad last night to me, with her being whiny and shrill, and him being smirky and eye-rolling), it seems to me that the show is beyond useless, which is funny, considering how I had no use for it to begin with.

Edited by AmberJamie, Jul 6, 2010 @ 12:59 PM.

  • 0

#20151

redrobin27

redrobin27

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 1:16 PM

I did not hate it, but I really do not understand why full grown adults like it so much without irony or drugs.

Hee! Right there with you, Ankai.

I think it's more often the other way around - generally the bad guys have carte blanche to do just about anything and the rest of the characters accept that very easily, since the baddies are expected to do that.

Yes, that's the impression I get as well.

Jake-Vienna debacle ( I feel sorry for neither one, by the way; they both looked bad last night to me, with her being whiny and shrill, and him being smirky and eye-rolling)

Me neither. Nor do I understand why Vienna's behavior is being rationalized as, "She's really young! She's only 23!" Say what now? Since when does early 20s justify acting like a petulant child? I think you can be emotional and upset without carrying on the way she did. Maybe my expectations of how a young adult should act is skewed, but if I knew nothing about Vienna, after watching her last night I certainly wouldn't have guessed that she was a couple steps away from 25. More like 18 or 19.

But then, I think A LOT of childish behavior, whether on scripted or reality TV, is justified for ADULTS due to age. Yes, I understand that the 20s is when you find yourself, blah. But finding yourself is nowhere near the same thing as acting like a child.

Edited by redrobin27, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:14 PM.

  • 0

#20152

McKay

McKay

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 1:16 PM

I agree with that, but then, I've thought so pretty much since the shows aired.

I'd also love to see Big Brother and Survivor yanked. Despite the fact that people still seem to be watching them, I think they ran their course a long time ago and are just boring and occasionally infuriating to watch.
  • 0

#20153

AmberJamie

AmberJamie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 1:58 PM

Me neither. Nor do I understand why Vienna's behavior is being rationalized as, "She's really young! She's only 23!" Say what now? Since when does early 20s justify acting like a petulant child? I think you can be emotional and upset without carrying on the way she did. Maybe my expectations of how a young adult should act is skewed, but if I knew nothing about Vienna, after watching her last night I certainly wouldn't have guessed that she was a couple steps away from 25. More like 18 or 19.

But then, I think A LOT childish behavior, whether on scripted or reality TV, is justified for ADULTS due to age. Yes, I understand that the 20s is when you find yourself, blah. But finding yourself is nowhere near the same thing as acting like a child.


What I don't get is this: around the same time this stupidity is happening, The Bachelorette is having their own scandal: a contestant pretended to be single when he had not one, but TWO girlfriends waiting for him back home. And, he apparently came on a dating show to further a wrestling career that, according to one girlfriend, does not exist. IMO, this story should be bigger news than two bickering exes. And, whoever thought that having two exes being interviewed together was a great idea should be punched.

I am sick sick sick to death of TV characters being made fun of for having anything akin to religion. Guess what? You can believe in a god or gods and not be stupid - and for that matter, when it comes to Christianity, not be a right-wing headcase. No, really, I swear, you can. The one exception I can think of is Turk on Scrubs.

I'm not a religious person at all, but it still pisses me off.


It's right up there with characters having issues with their parents. I swear, no one in Hollywood knows anyone stable.

Edited by AmberJamie, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:16 PM.

  • 0

#20154

redrobin27

redrobin27

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:18 PM

I got the impression it's not big news because a good deal of spoilers for the current Bachelorette season was already leaked before the season even started,including Frank dipping out early to supposedly reunited with an ex. So in the online world, I suspect Justin's duplicity wasn't a surprise to most, and by the time it was aired on the show, any buzz about it died down significantly. I don't think any of the season's twists are a big deal because of the leaked spoilers.

Edited by redrobin27, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:20 PM.

  • 0

#20155

Bastet Esq

Bastet Esq

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:23 PM

I am sick sick sick to death of TV characters being made fun of for having anything akin to religion.


I need to start watching what you're watching, as all I ever see with respect to religion is its triumph over the few atheists allowed to exist. Now, I do see fanatics mocked (and, of course, all of TV's Muslims are fanatics), but any derision of a run-of-the-mill believer is done by the misguided. So I suppose my UO is I'd like to see a character regard religion as an utterly ridiculous crutch and not be raked over the coals for it, narratively. The other characters need not denounce their own beliefs in response, of course, but I'd like to see it simply stand as a facet of the character, not represent an unreasonable flaw.

Edited by Bastet Esq, Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:35 PM.

  • 0

#20156

likeagrapefruit

likeagrapefruit

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:43 PM

I've never seen religion mocked on tv either and there aren't any atheists on tv, except maybe House.
  • 0

#20157

Zif

Zif

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:47 PM

I've never seen religion mocked on tv either and there aren't any atheists on tv, except maybe House.

Brennan on Bones is pretty upfront about her atheism (and kind of a jerk about the religious inclinations of others, as some atheists are prone to be). There's actually a list of fictitious atheists and agnostics at Wikipedia, but I will admit that it's short on TV characters (and includes Battlestar Galactica characters, which is somewhat pushing it, since while they are "atheists," they're operating in a world with an entirely different set of religions).

I am sick sick sick to death of TV characters being made fun of for having anything akin to religion.

You can believe in a god or gods and not be stupid - and for that matter, when it comes to Christianity, not be a right-wing headcase. No, really, I swear, you can.

I might be talking out of my ass here, but the overrepresentation of fundamentalists/right-wing types on American fictional TV shows may have a bit to do with American culture, where the right-wing religious presence is such a huge "voice" and therefore figures prominently when creators/writers/showrunners turn their minds to issues of Christianity.

I find that there seems to be a "split" between depictions of (Christian) faith in this way. Either it's sort of pseudo-Christian, vague and woolly (Touched by an Angel, Joan of Arcadia, and similar stuff), or it's hardcore conservative Christianity of the gay-hating, woman-hating, fire-and-brimstone variety. Not much room in between. I don't tend to see this kind of weird schizophrenic approach in British shows, where you have shows like, say, The Vicar of Dibley, where the protagonist is a sympathetic, kind-hearted female minister.

I will, however, put in a good word for the depiction of religion on Friday Night Lights, which is set in a Texas community; it's clear that religion is very important to many of the characters, but it's treated for the most part in a respectful way.

So I suppose my UO is I'd like to see a character regard religion as an utterly ridiculous crutch and not be raked over the coals for it, narratively. The other characters need not denounce their own beliefs in response, of course, but I'd like to see it simply stand as a facet of the character, not represent an unreasonable flaw.

Well, this might be my UO, but I think that an atheist denouncing those with religious beliefs just for having those beliefs is an "unreasonable flaw," and that characters who do that kind of thing completely deserve to be "raked over the coals for it," either "narratively" or by other characters. I think giving people a hard time for their beliefs, unless they're trying to impose their beliefs on you (through proselytizing/belligerence/insults/mistreatment/discrimination/legislation/violence/what have you), is sort of a dick thing to do and deserves to be called out as such. I cannot lament a lack of scenes of atheists acting like dicks on my TV, to be honest. More atheists would be great. More atheists acting like jerks without getting called out for it? Not so much. Sure, it would be realistic, in that there are real-life atheists who are jeering, militant assholes about it, but is it really something to be wished for?

Edited by Zif, Jul 6, 2010 @ 3:44 PM.

  • 0

#20158

AimingforYoko

AimingforYoko

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 2:49 PM

So I suppose my UO is I'd like to see a character regard religion as an utterly ridiculous crutch and not be raked over the coals for it, narratively.

See title characters of their shows, Drs. Temperence Brennan on Bones and Gregory House on House. They get scolded, but not for being Atheists, but for their mocking of people who need their 'crutch'.
House: "Crawl out of your holes, people!"
  • 0

#20159

McKay

McKay

    Stalker

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 3:36 PM

They get scolded, but not for being Atheists, but for their mocking of people who need their 'crutch'.


I've not seen House berated for this any more than he is for treating people badly for any OTHER thing he happens to pick on.

I mostly watch cartoons - anything Seth McFarlane has a hand in is a good place to start.

Edited by McKay, Jul 6, 2010 @ 3:36 PM.

  • 0

#20160

Niuxita

Niuxita

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 6, 2010 @ 7:08 PM

(and, of course, all of TV's Muslims are fanatics)


You should check out the Canadian sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie, which centers around a Muslim community in a small town. More than half of the main characters are Muslim and they are portrayed as just as fun, quirky, and easygoing as their non-Muslim counterparts. It's really refreshing to watch.

On topic:

It's right up there with characters having issues with their parents. I swear, no one in Hollywood knows anyone stable.


Yes, this. I'm tired of TV shows making it look like it's "cool" or "edgy" to have a crappy relationship with your parents/siblings/grandparents/etc. Yes, perfectly smooth relationships make for boring TV, but the way some TV characters act, you shouldn't talk if you get along fantastically with your parents because it's like you're living a sheltered life, or something.

Edited by Niuxita, Jul 6, 2010 @ 7:09 PM.

  • 0