I say non-sitcom because let's face it, there are a TON of one-and-done shitty sitcoms out there, or ones that last one season and die...

Sitcoms just roll off the pipeline non-stop.

And you have to have seen a few episodes, at least...because I HAVE seen shows where I hated the first episode, but watching later ones saved the show.

Star Trek TNG and Doctor Who were both like that. Encounter at Farpoint (the TNG two-part pilot) SUCKS...the show took a while to find its footing. And the first Doctor Who episode I saw was "The Waters of Mars," and I HATED IT...with a fiery passion.

But TNG got better, and then I watched Tom Baker as folks here suggested, so All's Well That Ends Well.

Not with this show, lol...the more episodes I watch, amazingly, the worse it gets...now I'm just determined to muscle through both seasons so I can say I did it and ask my friends what the FUCK they saw in this show, and why this won awards...

And I'll say this in closing--this show is unique:

This is the first time I've ever seen a novel, play, or show COMPLETELY fail as far as male characters in particular are concerned. Usually it's a guy failing to write good female characters, OR just a writer that sucks period (ie, Stephenie Meyer.)

Here...I want to meet Jenji Kohan, creator of this show, because I want to know what made her want to create a show where no male character (besides one guy who's pretty useless, underplayed, unprofessional, and kind of an asshole anyway) can seem to go a whole conversation--sometimes not an entire sentence!--without talking about how they want to screw or feel up or otherwise have sex with or accost women, either in general or these female inmates in particular.

...That, and we have a shitty Jewish male lead. Yay. Did a whole generation read Philip Roth and watch Woody Allen and think awkward, sarcastic, and sexually-frustrated and warped was the ONLY way to write Jewish men? Gah.

Oh, Kate Mulgrew...it's good to see you again, but once again, Captain Janeway--

You're on a show that you're WAY too good for. ;)

Hold on. You didn't like Waters of Mars? That's an AWESOME episode.

tl;dr:

I hate this show, this show sucks, the writing is as bad as I'v ever seen, the men are the worst male characters I've ever seen, the female lead is insipid and on par with Bella Swann, and...

I hate this show. ;)

@Chaqa:

1. Now I have to ask why you think it's OK, lol and more importantly,

2. Now I REALLY have to ask what Lizard Lick Towing is, that sounds like a parody of a show! xD

Weeds went from really good to so awfully bad that we stopped.

Like I said, it's OK. Not my favorite, and I haven't been bothered to find time to watch season 2 yet, but it's alright. I like House of Cards much more.

Nope, I hated that episode--

I hate most with the whole "Fixed Point in Time" bullshit...it's way too convenient, it seems really arbitrary and a lazy, and I hate it for the same reason I hate the way Voyager used the Prime Directive on Star Trek: Voyager--

It gives the heroes an excuse to be callous and cruel and just let shit happen to innocents because oh, no, what can we do, the Prime Directive/Fixed Point thing prohibits us from helping.

At least with TOS and TNG they debated it, and sometimes broke the Prime Directive if they really, really thought that was the better moral move--and I'm OK with it there. It gives a good dilemma--is it worth breaking this basic guiding principle and bending the rules in this particularly-difficult situation, or should we adhere to it and not interfere? On Voyager, it was nearly ALWAYS "Don't interfere!" even when non-interference could mean death on a massive scale, and it was considered beyond debate.

Same with the Fixed Point thing--it's arbitrary (why are some points fixed and others not, I've NEVER heard a valid defense of that) and for a past event, I can at least buy that for the obvious reason that they can't go back in time and, say, undo 9/11.

But a future event, like The Waters of Mars? The ONLY reason the Tenth Doctor couldn't save those people in his usual, peppy, talk-a-ton way was because he script said so, and that's just shitty writing...

FAR better is the whole "Do I have the right?" speech from the Fourth Doctor on whether or not to essentially pull a Terminator and kill the Daleks back in the past...THAT scene worked because it actually, vocally addressed the age-old question "If you saw a baby and knew it was going to grow up to be Hitler, could you/would it be morally right to kill said baby?"

Waters of Mars did not, because lazy writing.

You say The Waters of Mars is a future event - but not to the Doctor. It's the past for him. Of course, time isn't a line, more like a ball or a circle (as he says, a wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey thing). Fixed points are things that MUST happen - always happen. Example, Captain Jack is a fixed point (hence he can't die, because he just is). The fixed point he changes though - it still happens... just slightly different. His meddling caused the lady to kill herself, and thus the fixed point was fixed still.

I get that, but narratively speaking, for the audience, it's in the future, so for us...

What's the difference between this and all the other situations in the future where the Doctor has helped out and changed things?

The only difference is the script says it is so, ergo, it is so--that's textbook lazy writing.

And again--WHY are some things "Fixed Points" and "must happen?"

That logic doesn't work, has never worked, and is completely arbitrary.

And granted, this is a show about an alien with two hearts and 13 different incarnations now who travels through time and space in a blue 1960s police box that's bigger on the inside with whatever kind of girl the producers think will make ratings go up and occasionally a guy for the heck of it...all to visit a New New York on New Earth with cat nuns and travel back in time to fight evil trash can tanks with plungers.

I get that you have to suspend disbelief somewhat.

But that doesn't work for EVERYTHING...at some level, you still need your story's logic and universe to have some internal logic stay consistent, at least.

Fixed Points are basically plot points--we, the writers, decide X must happen/not happen this week, ergo, it's a Fixed Point, and even though any other week this problem could be resolved and these people saved, not this week.

That's just weak, lazy storytelling.

Again, in our ACTUAL past, I get--you cannot undo 9/11 or actually kill Hitler...though the Doctor saving his life momentarily is a sight I could've done without, lol...yay, thank you for saving Hitler...then again, for as much as I didn't care for Amy or Rory (the former was useless and grating, the latter useless and dull) at least that gave way to Rory's one good moment, ordering Hitler to get in the closet, lol.

But yeah, I get, even with time travel, you need limits, and obviously a permanent change to our real past is a no-no. But an imaginary future? Tinker with it! You do so EVERY OTHER WEEK! OR, if you really want this to be different and want there to be a reason you can't do this...continuity?

The 4th Doctor didn't kill the Daleks back in time, but hey, that's an imaginary world, you can do what you want, AND it gave a good dilemma, AND there's the in-show reason he even points out, that the Daleks existing will cause people to come together, so undoing them undoes that, so you at least have some justification.

There is none--one episode, they just make up a Fixed Point and a one-off event that must occur because other one-off events must occur later that never matter again. It's lazy, lazy, LAZY.

I watched four hours of Hardcore Pawn before I realized I could have been doing something more productive, like sticking my leg with a fork.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Fixed_point_in_time

True Blood
Terrible writing with the vampires only goal is to bang as many virgins as possible before being staked.

@2WL: Hardcore pawn is my guilty pleasure show. Something about those idiot people getting kicked out of the store is awesome. Also, I love when the annoying daughter gets told to shut up.

Orange in the New Black is fine. It's not great, but it's not terrible. It has some interesting characters like Healy and Poussey. And considering all the shows that utterly fail the Bechdel Test, you pick on Orange is the New Black? I bet you're one of those people who like Game of Thrones, which is basically pornography. And all the other fantasy/sci-fi shows that treat women like garbage or simply have them seen and not heard.

Obi has this need to hate on anything pop culture that is popular at the moment, while simultaneously having tastes and views that are decidedly conventional. It's very strange. How many "I can't believe people like this" threads have we had now?

Game of Thrones pornography? Maybe, but you can't argue it portrays women poorly. There's a lot of great female characters on the show (even more so in the books).

"I bet you're one of those people who like Game of Thrones, which is basically pornography."

Wrong again! Watched one episode, fell asleep! ;) (Though, to be fair, I watched it with friends at like 2am after a night of drinking...I do believe winter was coming...other than that, royal incest, and somebody getting brutally killed, I don't remember squat...but as I understand it, that's basically the show?) :p

^The above is a joke and should be taken as such GoT fans, chill.

"And all the other fantasy/sci-fi shows that treat women like garbage or simply have them seen and not heard."

1. I don't watch fantasy...not my thing.

2. I watch Star Trek and Doctor Who...and that's mostly it for sci-fi?

3. Star Trek TNG and Star Trek Voyager, at least, were pretty OK on the female front

4. My favorite show of all-time is The West Wing...wherein we have C.J. "Ms. Amazing Because Allison Janney IS THE JACKAL!" Cregg, Donna Moss, Nancy the Kickass Situation Room Lady (I forget her title), Dr. Bartlett herself, "Awesome" Ainsley Hayes for a few episodes, and in the last two seasons...um...Kristin Chenoweth playing...um...she has a name, Annabel something...who cares, she's basically playing Kristin Chenoweth and is therefore extremely tiny but extremely talented (for what she does, anyway.)

Get off my case on that front, Putin--The West Wing passes the Bechdel Test and is AWESOME...as for Orange is the New Black...

Female characters that get raped at the drop of a hat.

Tremors: The Series. Worst. Show. Ever.

Name some GoT characters who have been raped.

Let me ask you, Putin:

Do you think Orange is the New Black shows women in a good light?
I don't.
I think that show's a MESS, and extremely unfair to both sexes...

It treats women AND men as little more than stereotypes.

I don't know what you find interesting about Healy...don't have an opinion on Poussey yet...

That main character, Piper, is perhaps the closest thing I've ever seen to a Bella Swann-esque character written for adults and given PRAISE...I keep watching because I need to either find why this show has won awards or just make it through at this point...but good GOD is she an awful character! Nearly all the female characters are passable to sub-par and just about all are stereotypes! There isn't one good (and I mean that in both a moral AND an artistic sense) male character on that show PERIOD...

It's a MESS, an ugly train wreck of a show, and I really wonder what Kenji Kohan's approach to writing gender is...

If how she views women is conveyed in Piper and the other women that get main screen time (she seems to have a REAL problem with African-Americans in particular so far, she doesn't give a pretty picture of that group at all thus far) and if she views men is conveyed by Larry McJewboy there (his actually calling himself "Jewboy" made me cringe, gah) and every single other sexist asshole on this show.

It's ridiculous--no woman escapes this show without sounding vapid, stereotypical, or both, and no man escapes it without seeming like a complete and total prick.

It's a MESS. A messy mess of a mess.

I have to say Walking Dead has to be up there with the worst shows I've seen in a long time. Walker, Texas Ranger and MacGyver would have to be among the worst ever though.

"Obi has this need to hate on anything pop culture that is popular at the moment, while simultaneously having tastes and views that are decidedly conventional. It's very strange. How many "I can't believe people like this" threads have we had now?"

...Are you going hipster on me here, Putin?

How dare I like authors that are so "mainstream?" ...Except I allegedly don't like works of fiction in film and TV that are too mainstream...?

And I do--

Doctor Who's popular, I like that...
The New Star Trek films, regardless of quality, are popular (albeit less so with the old fanbase) and I like them on a silly action movie level, though I wish they could do more...
I liked House, that was popular...
Breaking Bad, liked that...
House of Cards, liked that (though admittedly less as it's gone on, and the British version's FAR better, kudos to the writing staff there!)

The fact of the matter is, I don't WATCH that much TV or see that many non-literature movies, not my thing. So, no, I don't hate what's popular--

I hate what SUCKS...and I say that Orange is the New Black sucks...badly...

On a line by line level...the conflict is shit, the characters are shit with a couple sprinkles mixed in, whatever it's trying to say gets undercut by its inability to focus and its horrible characters, and the dialogue is some of the most trite and unoriginal, scripted dreck I've ever heard come out of a character's mouth, let alone on an award-winning show.

Cersei

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/21/game_of_thrones_and_the_glamorization_of_rape/

Yeah, no. They completely changed that scene from the book, so I don't consider it real.

As for books...yeah. I like a lot of the Classics.

May I ask what's wrong with that?

There's a REASON they're classics...and yeah, some are resting on their laurels in that respect (I'm none to impressed with Charlotte Bronte--both Emily and Anne were better--and I really think William Carlos Williams is overrated...I dislike Ezra Pound, too, but that's for entirely non-literary reasons) but a lot of them are deserving of my respect and time.

That being said, I like Cormac McCarthy, and Toni Morrison, and while I don't think either one are on the level of those two, Alice Sebold and Jennifer Egan were alright when I read them...writing in 2008 and 2011, I believe, respectively, for their works...

I'm not going to hide my love of Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky because they're too "conventional." THEY DESERVE TO BE!

On the other hand, there are current authors I really fucking hate...I DESPISE Jonathan Safran Foer's "Everything is Illuminated," I absolutely hate hate hate hate HATE that book and everything the guy does in it, from his half-assed magical realism that couldn't even sniff the likes of the late-great Gabriel Garcia Marquez to the terrible attempt at a Post-Modernist structure (I dislike that movement in general, Vonnegut's far and away my favorite to come out of that...Kurt Vonnegut...he's a boss, Tralfamadorians and all) to the terribly over-simplifed narrative he tries to tell about the Holocaust to his having hundreds of grandmothers rape a little boy missing a hand (yes, you read that right, WHAT THE FUCK, FOER...WHAT IN ALL OF THE FUCK...)

I like new books and old books alike--I like GOOD books and GOOD works of art.

Safran Foer and Orange is the new Black are shit.

And I can't even say Orange is just trying to be a fun show and let it off the hook that easily...it's CLEARLY trying to comment on gender politics and class and race...

If it wants to do that, and be taken seriously, it's open to serious criticism--and boy do I think it should get a truckload of it (more than just someone comparing it to Taylor Swift.)

No, they are not 'stereotypes' (funny coming from a Dickens fan). You just keep repeating yourself as if that makes what you say true.

Healy is interesting because you can see he is trying to be a good person, actually believes he is helping people, but then he'll just explode in a fit of rage and then there's the whole mail order bride thing so you can't fully sympathize with him. The relationship between Poussey and Taystey is interesting, and leads Taystey to be exiled from her clique. Red is also pretty great. And not all the male characters are terrible. Caputo actually cares about the inmates. John Bennett is also not a douche and I don't know you can say otherwise. The only two who are terrible are Larry and Pornstache.

"Do you think Orange is the New Black shows women in a good light?"

They're prisoners, dude. Nobody is going to be seen fully in a 'good light'. But several of the characters are sympathetic yes. Poussey, Daya, Red, even Pensatuckey is kind of sympathetic.

@Chaqa - We are talking about TV in this thread, so I stand by my statement re: GoT rape.

What the fuck is "post-modern"? If it is modern, then it is current. If it is post, it happened after. Post-modern would have to happen after what is now. We call that science fiction and William Gibson does great near future cyber punk fiction. So what the fuck is post modern?

I can understand not liking GoT because of all the miserable things that happen to the characters. Picking one bad thing, though (ie female rape) seems odd. It's not like rape is glorified and often bad things happen to misogynist as a direct result of their actions. Further, there are many strong female characters in the show, which is more than can be said for a lot of modern TV shows.