Bitterswete

I don't really agree. Yes, Elena stayed with Stefan after finding out about him. But that was in spite of him being a vampire. It was a thing she came to terms with, but it was hardly one of the things that attracted her to him. Instead, the feelings she already had for him gave her an incentive to try to accept what he was. And, in fact, she couldn't accept it at first. As for her sticking by him through the Amber situation, that was a case of him "going through something." It wasn't really him but a problem he was having, and something she was going to help him get through. It wasn't like she was totally fine with him going out and attacking more people or something. Because of her feelings for him, she was willing to stand by him, and help him get back to his "normal self," the one who didn't go around attacking people. Which involved locking him up until he got himself under control. For Damon, I think Katherine being a vampire was part of the allure, part of the turn on. And he was obviously fine with her attacking innocent people. So a totally different situation.

Smallville once did an episode that touched on the plight of illegal immigrants. And, when it was over, I really wished they hadn't. Not because I don't think it's an issue that should be explored in fiction. But Smallville, with the kind of writing it had, was not the show to be doing it. I feel the same way about TVD. A show about vampires who lived in the same era as Stefan and Damon, that really delved into the era they were raised in, explores how issues from the past affect them in the present and so on could be very interesting. But the thought of TVD actually trying to do that makes me cringe so hard. I mean, they can barely handle simple stuff like creating good character arcs, developing the relationships between the characters, etc. And I'm supposed to expect them to handle some really deep and delicate issue well? I think exploring some issues in fiction can be a good thing. But some shows just aren't good enough to do certain issues justice. And I'd rather a show stay away from certain subjects than handle them badly.

It's true nobody knows what it's like to be 1000+ years old and trapped in a young body. But a good writer can sort of imagine what that would be like, and communicate that in their story. Sort of the same way they do with vampires, aliens, etc. Of course, a lot depends on whether the writers are actually interested in exploring issues like what living for centuries in a young body would be like. And I don't think the TVD writers are. The Highlander did both, which I think made sense. Some Immortals were cold and detached (even monstrous, in some cases), and didn't think mortals were worth much. Other Immortals were engaged and involved, didn't look down on mortals, and still had a desire to learn, help, experience things, etc. Basically, Immortals were treated as individuals. So one 1000 year old Immortal being one way didn't mean another would be the same way. It all depended on the kind of people they were, their life experiences, how they reacted to those experiences, etc. The Highlander is probably why the Originals being 1000+ years old didn't blow my mind. Because some Immortals are two or three times older (if not more), so I'm used to the idea of characters being so old I can barely comprehend it.

I think a lot of the Lana-dislike was backlash. The show runners were so determined to make more viewers like her that they kept pushing her and pushing her. Without that, I think more viewers would've been able to tolerate (if not actually like) the character. But having her (and her "specialness") shoved down their throats made more viewers actively loathe her.

This is actually okay by me. Then again, I was never a big Chloe/Clark 'shipper. I thought they could be enjoyable to watch, and probably better than most of Clark's other 'ships. But I was okay with them never getting together romantically, and just being really good friends. Really, by the time the show ended, I didn't like Clark enough to want him with Chloe. As for Chloe/Oliver, I know the complaints about them, and some of them hold water. But, at the end of the day, I just enjoyed that relationship. And think that while, yes, it was kind of rushed, AM and JH still manage to sell it and make it work. Not to mention they had great chemistry and really played off of each other well. Sometimes, something just being enjoyable to watch trumps any technical flaws it might have.

I don't think the show runners were trying to punish Chloe for being more popular than Lana. It was more that Lana was their lead female character, and she wasn't as popular as they wanted her to be. So, to fix it, it was like they altered Chloe in order to make Lana look better. Like they expected viewers to say, "Man, compared to that bitchy Chloe, Lana is totally awesome." And, at the same time, they tried to make Lana the most wonderful and sympathetic character ever by filling her life with more tragedy, giving her more talents, making more characters sing her praises, etc. But instead of ending up with more viewers loving Lana, they just had more viewers who didn't like Chloe either. I say all this because as soon as they stopped doing the "make Chloe look bad so Lana looks good by comparison" thing, they pretty much immediately went back to writing Chloe as awesome. Which I don't think they could've done if the writers actually had a grudge against her character.

I don't hold the stuff Chloe did in the episode against her. She had been blasted by a powerful, experimental drug that was not only capable of affecting people's minds, but had altered her body on who knows what level to turn her into a walking truth extractor. And we know that Kryptonite often brought out the not-so-nice sides of people. So it stands to reason that the drug was also the cause of Chloe's behavior in that episode.

I don't think it was so much that Elena was a vampire as the way she was behaving as a vampire. And I got no problem with that. I think the way people act can affect the way we feel about them. Which is totally normal. Caring about someone doesn't mean you should be okay with whatever they do or however they behave. Also, I always thought Stefan was so set on curing Elena because she once told him, very specifically and with much emotion, that she did not want to be a vampire. And he thought that, if she was herself, wanting him to do whatever he could to cure her would be exactly what she wanted. We have no idea what Damon's body count is (although the "only 12 people" thing boggles my mind). But, to be honest, it makes no difference to me what characters have done in the past aside from giving them interesting backstories that inform who they are as characters. What matters is what they do now. Yes, Stefan has blood on his hands. But, now, he is a character who puts a lot of time and energy into doing as little harm to people as possible. Yes, Damon, once showed signs of being decent. But, now, he is a character who will kill innocents on a whim and without remorse. I have to add that one of my favorite characters ever probably had a higher body count than all of the TVD characters combined before he had a change of heart. And his bloody past often made him exactly the right person to give other characters advice. Because he'd been there, done that, and knew the consequences.

I don't think being judgmental is automatically a bad thing. Being judgmental about someone's personal choices is one thing. Being judgmental about someone doing things that hurt other people, or that you think will hurt them in the long run, is a totally different thing, and I don't see why it's considered bad. Considering the kinds of things Damon has done, I've got no problem with other characters judging his actions as bad, wrong, etc. As for Damon not being judgmental, a lot of that is because he just doesn't care. If someone tells him they're going to rob a bank, it's fine by him. Because he doesn't care that they might end up in jail (which wouldn't be a lot of fun), or that some trigger-happy guard might shoot them to death. If someone wants to go on a three week drug bender, Damon would tell them to go for it. Because he doesn't care about what that could do to their health, life, mind, or relationships. He doesn't care that they could end up ODing at some point. At least they'll go out with a bang. Basically, I don't see Damon not being judgmental as some big positive trait of his. Especially since, when he does care about someone, that non-judgmental, live-and-let-live thing flies right out the window.

This makes me think of the times people have asked me if they should watch Smallville, and I find myself hemming and hawing, and finally say something like, "Yeah, there are some parts of it you might like. I guess." Then I give them all kinds of warnings to try to prepare them for the many, many disappointments they will experience along the way. I can't count how many times I said something like, "Well, if you don't go in expecting too much, you can enjoy it. Sometimes." That being said, there were things about the show I liked and enjoyed. But the disappointing parts can make that hard to remember.

It's actually not unusual for leads on these types of shows not to ask questions, especially if they weren't interested in the supernatural (or whatever type of weirdness they're dealing with) until they actually got mixed up in it. Buffy didn't go out of her way to learn about the supernatural, or the kinds of things she could end up facing. Only when something supernatural was actually happening did she show an interest. And, even then, the interest was more "I have to ask Giles what's going on and how to stop it" than her just wanting to learn more in general. Like many lead characters, Scott seems to want to focus on trying to deal with day-to-day life (and being a werewolf), and only cares about specific, supernatural things when they are an actual threat he and the gang will have to deal with.

I liked Jason. As a character in his own right, he was sweet, charming, and just likable. And being around him did make Lana more likable too. She seemed so normal and natural around him compared to how she was around Clark. I would've been perfectly fine with Jason snapping under the pressure of everything that was going on and doing a lot of the same things he ended up doing. Or with his mother threatening him and somehow forcing him to do her bidding. Both storylines (or a combination of the two) would've worked given the actual, pre-retcon stuff we saw with his character. Instead, the writers decide that, despite everything we saw onscreen that said otherwise, he had been evil and working for his mom all along. It just seemed so unnecessary. And it felt like the writers either a) didn't think the show's audience was bright enough to remember all of the "Jason isn't evil or working for his mother" stuff they did earlier in the season, or b) they were too lazy to write Jason turning to the dark side in a way that didn't contradict the earlier stuff. They knew viewers would notice the retconning, they just didn't care.

And I've always been able to totally separate actors from the characters they play. So I can dislike an actor but still really love a character they play. Anyway, regarding Malia, I don't dislike her. In fact, I found her likable enough in the asylum episode. But on a show where the characters they already have have barely gotten any development to speak of, it feels like they're just introducing new characters to not develop. And, if they do end up developing her more than usual, I'll be wondering why she's getting so much development when characters who've been around longer haven't. Then again, I kind of felt the same about Kira until I actually saw her on the show, and I ended up really liking her and wanting to know more about her. So I might end up feeling the same way about Malia. Maybe.

I also like Peter, or at least I like the potential of his character. I don't need a character to be a good person in order to find them enjoyable to watch, and I've loved characters who have done far, far worse than anything he has. As long as they don't try to do a "he was just a poor woobie, and none of the bad stuff he did was really his fault" thing with him. I like characters who own their evil deeds, even when they've turned over a new leaf. Now I'm really iffy about the "Malia is Peter's daughter" thing. I'm totally unspoiled, so don't have any idea where the storyline might be going. And, in all honesty, I was really hoping for a surprise twist where someone else would turn out to be his kid. Not because I don't like Malia, but the way it all came about just seemed too neat somehow. But I'll just wait and see how it plays out.

I often see comments about how Stefan is so controlling and judgmental, and so about forcing his will on others. Which always leaves me scratching my head, because I don't see this. Don't get me wrong, he's had his "controlling" moments. But so has just about every other character on the show. I don't see "controlling" as a defining characteristic of his character. It's not like Stefan storms around telling people how they should live and then condemning them if they don't do what he says. I do think that Stefan thinks certain things are bad, and if he sees or hears about Damon (or anyone else) doing something he considers wrong he might not try to hide how he feels about it. I just don't see how that's a bad thing. And, as pointed out above, Damon isn't above trying to control other people. He is "live and let live" in the sense that he wouldn't care much about someone robbing a bank or doing drugs, stuff like that. But he's all about demanding people do what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it, and has been known to threaten when he doesn't get his way fast enough.

I thought your original point was that Stefan should "have faith" in Damon, which is a different thing. Stefan just having faith in Damon implies that Stefan should just believe, all evidence to the contrary, that Damon won't go off as a response to emotional pain, and the fact that he didn't have this faith in Damon over the Enzo situation makes him a bad brother. That's what I was disagreeing with. Now I do agree that Stefan thinking that hiding the truth was a good idea was silly because Damon was going to find out eventually. And Damon is totally capable of striking out in his grief, and then blaming his actions on the fact that nobody told him what happened right away. Even then, I think Stefan would've been perfectly justified in thinking Damon might still go off, no matter how gently someone broke the news to him. Because Damon has reacted badly to people gently breaking things to him before. Although I think it's ridiculous that Stefan has to worry about how Damon will react to things. But I totally understand why he does. And that if Damon reacts badly to something, it's not someone else's fault for not telling him the right way, or at the right time, or in the right tone of voice, or whatever. Seriously, the other characters have been tip-toeing around Damon (for good reason, but still) since the first season for fear of setting him off like some homicidal brat.

Why in the world should Stefan not think Damon would go off when he heard the bad news? It's not like it's been years and years since Damon reacted badly to something. He's done so many, many times, and pretty recently too. Learning about Damon's motives in the past has nothing to do with it. The fact is, Damon's way of "dealing" with bad news has often been lashing out at people. Having faith in someone is wonderful and all, but blind faith (telling yourself someone won't do something they've done dozens of times) is another story. And, if anything, I think Damon has more than earned the doubts and fears Stafan has about him and how he will react to things.

Exactly. And there have always been hints that there was more going on beneath the "nice guy" surface with Stefan, even before we knew about the Ripper thing. With Damon, he does something bad and it's no big surprise. But Stefan did some things in season one that kind of made me go "waoh." And the things he did weren't anywhere near as over the top as the stuff Damon did, but those subtle moments still had an impact.

I tend to talk about Damon a lot because discussions about him tend to bring up issues I feel strongly about. (Like personal responsibility, which is a big issue where his character is concerned.) And as for so many people talking about him being a good thing, I wouldn't say that. In my experience, some of the most hated things in different fandoms are often what end up getting talked about the most as fans vent and try to get what bugs them about the character, episode or storyline off of their chests. So Damon getting talked about a lot doesn't necessarily mean good things. Damon is not a well-developed character. Even in the beginning, when I found his character entertaining, I didn't find him very interesting most of the time. (I say "mostly" because there were moments that had potential, but the show didn't really capitalize on them.) I always felt like Damon was kind of surfacey, and his character felt very familiar to me. And compared to characters I truly consider "deep and complex," Damon barely rates.

I never thought TW was the problem. I do think that because of the way Clark was written (doing and saying the same things over and over, reacting to things in the same ways, having to keep learning the same lessons again and again) TW just got bored with the part, and that it showed. But when he was actually given something to do that wasn't the same-old-same-old, TW would often did a great job.

My problems with Clark weren't that he was the earnest good guy. I liked him most when he was like that. And him being so hung up on Lana also wasn't my main issue with him. (Although that didn't help his character.) My problem with Clark was that he became less likable as the show went on. Like remember how he said that Lionel would've been proud of Lex if Lex had just "tried harder." Never mind that Clark knows Lionel had been abusing Lex since he was a little boy, and was still abusing him into adulthood. Maybe Lionel wouldn't have done all of those horrible things to him if Lex had just been better. Because that's not a totally sucky thing to say to an abuse survivor. Or the time Clark threw a hissy fit and then went stomping out of Chloe's life just after her husband was brutally murdered right in front of her. But Clark was too wrapped up in his own stuff to care about that. And how many times did Clark sit around, hoping the problem of the season would go away, until things got so bad he had to do something. This kind of thing is maybe understandable the first time. But, by the second or third, you'd think he would've learned that "wait and see" wasn't the best way to handle such situations. Then there was how he implied that Lex had actually gone crazy, even though he knew full well that Lionel drugged Lex into a psychotic break. Never mind that implying someone went crazy when you know they didn't is one of the cruelest things you can do to a person. Really, I could go on and on. My problems with Clark were that he was a sucky friend, treated people like crap way too often, never seemed to learn anything, so kept on making the same mistakes over and over again, was more than a little hypocrtical (it was totally fine for him to snoop into other people's business, but how dare anyone be curious about the wierdness surrounding him), etc. It was like the longer the show went on, the less Supermanly Clark became.

I don't think Scott's any more shallow than the other characters on the show. We've gotten some of his backstory. I feel like I know who he is, where he stands, and what he'll usually do in a given situation. And he's changed and grown from the start of the show. Now, whether or not a viewer finds him as interesting as other characters is another story.

But how deep can they be expected to be? Really, they just met, and were still in the "getting to know you" phase when all the craziness started. So it's not like they'd been together for a while but their relationship just hadn't gotten any development. If anything, they were developing towards a relationship. It's actually the opposite of Scott/Allison, who became "deep and serious" almost immediately. I actually never had a big problem with that pairing, but I just enjoyed watching Scott/Kira more. Taking to the Scott thread.

Whether someone's tone is sanctimonious is subjective. (A lot has to do with how a viewer already feels about a character.) But just because Damon chooses not to call other people out doesn't mean he should be exempt from having other people call him on his crap. And it doesn't make the crap he pulls less bad. Although, as someone above mentioned, he does like to shift blame for his own behavior onto other people. ("Yeah, I did this bad thing, but you made me!") Which is kind of worse then someone sounding a little prissy when they tell him he shouldn't go around murdering people. I've liked a lot of characters who looked like they might change for the better, only for them to go back to the dark side. I might have been disappointed, but I still loved the characters. So, no, that's not my problem with Damon. Also, it's not about forgiving Damon either. I have loved characters who've done things I consider unforgivable. They are still great characters. Really, me not loving Damon to bits is no big mystery. It's just that I've seen characters like him before, but done so much better. And I've seen what the writers seem to be trying to do with him done before. Only, again, so much better. I do tend to like healthy relationships more than toxic, "We're so bad for each other, but just can't help it," types of relationships in shows. (While those can be fun to watch, I usually get bored with them eventually.) In fact I remember, back when the show started, Stefan/Elena being one of the things it was most praised for. That they were so healthy (not perfect, but not toxic either), but still romantic and enjoyable to watch. So while you might have found Stefan/Elena boring, that doesn't mean every viewer did.

I don't judge a character's actions on whether or not other characters have done bad stuff too. So the other characters don't have to be perfect angels for me to think the things Damon does are heinous, cruel, petty, reprehensible, squicky, etc. Other characters doing bad things doesn't make the crap Damon pulls okay. (Although I sometimes think that's what the writers are going for.) I also don't agree with this idea that if a character has ever done something wrong in their entire lives, they lose the right to think something Damon does is wrong. Because a person doesn't have to be a saint to think Damon shouldn't go around killing innocent people. Every character on the show, no matter what they've done themselves, has the right to call Damon out on his crap. Then he has the right to call them out on whatever bad thing he thinks they've done. But the other character would still be right about his actions being crappy. I don't have to know a one-shot character well to think them being slaughtered is bad, or for that to affect my view of the character that did it. When a regular character does something like this to a walk-on (who might not even have lines), it's not really about the walk-on. It's about what the regular did, and what that says about them. So it wasn't about the Whitmores. It was about the fact that even while Damon was in MF doing various "good" things (or at least not being as bad as he was when the show started), and acting like he was progressing to some degree, he was still the same old Damon, out their murdering innocent people out of pettiness and spite.