• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Unpopular opinions

JDawg said:
I'm confused as to how you think the acting is bad. Sure it has its moments because not all the actors/actresses in such a huge ensemble cast can be Philip Seymour Hoffman but some of my favorite moments in the show are when Jon Hamm doesn't speak, he just nails the perfect facial expressions to express his feelings (example with potential spoiler: when he was in Peggy's office last episode as she did her power move)
Click to expand...

good at faces =/= good at acting

january jones is turrible

the actor who plays pete campbell is perfect, great casting, his smug face is just ideal for the role - feel much the same way about elizabeth olson and her B.R.F.

slattery is terrific

hamm leans on his handsomeness - he is supposed to have the demeanor of gary cooper, so i get that he is steely most of the time, but when he's forced to go sad/scared/vulnerable, it's really tough to buy

ImTheCaptain said:
eh, lots of people also think it's kind of boring. don't let the fact that there's a lengthy thread on it fool you
Click to expand...

didn't realize that - i haven't read that thread hardly at all, also that was a cool rj-ism
 
Seinfeld's been off the air for 16 years. That's clearly from a different era of television.

I don't think it's that odd to put Mad Men in a tier below Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, West Wing, Shield, and Arrested Development. The first three in particular are clearly superior.

Mad Men has flaws, but it's better than nearly everything else on television. The fact that it's done what it's done and lasted long enough so that people can have meaningful discussions about its characters is pretty significant IMO.

I'd argue that Mad Men has an arc of underrated to overrated and is now properly rated.
 
bigdoublezero said:
Seinfeld's been off the air for 16 years. That's clearly from a different era of television.

I don't think it's that odd to put Mad Men in a tier below Sopranos, The Wire, Breaking Bad, West Wing, Shield, and Arrested Development. The first three in particular are clearly superior.

Mad Men has flaws, but it's better than nearly everything else on television. The fact that it's done what it's done and lasted long enough so that people can have meaningful discussions about its characters is pretty significant IMO.

I'd argue that Mad Men has an arc of underrated to overrated and is now properly rated.
Click to expand...

at what point was MM underrated?
 
when it first launched, as most great television tends to be

as most great anything tends to be, come to think of it. it's the boom-bust of the zeitgeist.
 
TownieDeac said:
good at faces =/= good at acting

january jones is turrible
Click to expand...

I mean, it's certainly a part. Most of acting is non-verbal.

And January Jones is barely around any more. I actually think her casting is pretty good BECAUSE of her limited skills, it actually adds to the character because she seems forced and fake, but that can be argued.
 
Only clip of Mad Men I've seen is where they drop acid at a party. The visualization of their trip was so corny.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
weird, b/c i remember MM as blowing up when it aired
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. Jon Hamm was talking about this last week, he said it started off huge but tapered off and now it's mostly just the die hards, when something like Breaking Bad was the complete opposite, started off slow and by the end everyone was tuning in. I say that without any ratings information whatsoever.
 
JDawg said:
I think you are correct. Jon Hamm was talking about this last week, he said it started off huge but tapered off and now it's mostly just the die hards, when something like Breaking Bad was the complete opposite, started off slow and by the end everyone was tuning in. I say that without any ratings information whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That's pretty accurate. A lot of people caught up on the show and watched the last season or last half season live.
 
bigdoublezero said:
BSF, no cable in the bunker?
Click to expand...

No tv but my bro gave me the password for his Dish account so I could watch it online but it just doesn't look appealing to me, even though I know it's supposed to be really good. Mainly just watch ball and the occasional movie.
 
bigdoublezero said:
I love eggs and egg yolk, and I'm never above slapping an egg on something to make it better. I actually like breakfast and breakfast food, too.
Click to expand...

I have the #scoop you guys!

A persons preference of breakfast vs lunch can heavily be explained by the overall quality of food they eat. That is, someone who spends more time/money or has a bigger opportunity to eat high quality foods will prefer lunch over breakfast. That's why I think the bigger city folks who have a lot more good food options are going to end up pro-lunch while smaller city people might be pro-breakfast.

It's easier to make a fancy breakfast than a fancy lunch, and if food options are limited, lunch and dinner can become somewhat repetitive and boring, while breakfast is more unique or whatever. So I can see if you live in a place without a ton of monte ethnic and experimental food, you might prefer breakfast over lunch.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
I have the #scoop you guys!

A persons preference of breakfast vs lunch can heavily be explained by the overall quality of food they eat. That is, someone who spends more time/money or has a bigger opportunity to eat high quality foods will prefer lunch over breakfast. That's why I think the bigger city folks who have a lot more good food options are going to end up pro-lunch while smaller city people might be pro-breakfast.

It's easier to make a fancy breakfast than a fancy lunch, and if food options are limited, lunch and dinner can become somewhat repetitive and boring, while breakfast is more unique or whatever. So I can see if you live in a place without a ton of monte ethnic and experimental food, you might prefer breakfast over lunch.
Click to expand...

WGAF about small city people?
 
IAppreciateIt said:
I have the #scoop you guys!

A persons preference of breakfast vs lunch can heavily be explained by the overall quality of food they eat. That is, someone who spends more time/money or has a bigger opportunity to eat high quality foods will prefer lunch over breakfast. That's why I think the bigger city folks who have a lot more good food options are going to end up pro-lunch while smaller city people might be pro-breakfast.

It's easier to make a fancy breakfast than a fancy lunch, and if food options are limited, lunch and dinner can become somewhat repetitive and boring, while breakfast is more unique or whatever. So I can see if you live in a place without a ton of monte ethnic and experimental food, you might prefer breakfast over lunch.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps a good breakfast is a rarity that is only enjoyed on special occasions, whereas a good lunch happens regularly and is, therefore, nothing special.
 
That's stupid. The argument isn't whether it's possible to have a great breakfast. The question is whether it's the worst meal of the day in general.

Just because some people have great breakfasts every once in awhile or eat shitty lunches doesn't really work here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top