Danielg342

The Donald is leading the Republican polls...which is in of itself scary. The good news- if you see it that way- is that Hilary is leading the overall polls by a wide margin. So the Donald's nomination may not matter much.

Secnarf, Bookish Jen, the Ministry of Labour has an obligation to investigate if the workplace doesn't, and inappropriate touching could likely involve the police as well. Hope it works out for you, Frances. Your co-worker should never treat you like that, no matter how long he's been there.

Well that's a bummer. :(

Joe Mantegna posted this to his official Facebook account, so I assume there's a lot of truth to this, even if it seems clear to me that the writer's first language isn't English: http://www.dayherald.com/criminal-minds-old-cast-members-confirmed-while-new-members-introduced-messer-promises-a-great-season/4105/ Confirms Aisha Tyler's casting, and says that Paget Brewster is returning too. Says that Callahan is simply on a break and that JJ will be out for the first half of the season. The article also asserts that this season will only be 22 episodes, its lowest total since the strike-shortened Season 3 (which still produced 20). It's probably just a cost-cutting move, although it makes me wonder about S12 (the article says not to worry about that...but...). I'm not sure how much I can draw from it, but it's got some interesting stuff. We'll see how it plays out.

Would be nice. I've said it before and I'll say it again- Reid is so compelling a character that he deserves his own show.

I think that's just good advice in general. Don't give up, put your heart in it and don't let the critics get to you (but do build from their suggestions). Writing only gets better through practice, and more practice, no matter what style you write.

I don't think they explained it. I figured he escaped and was still affected by it, which is why he didn't go down with the team to Florida.

I think there's a few things at play. Being a writer myself, I can relate to where some of these “whompers” are coming from. 1) It's much easier to write a story where your character is in peril because you are in control of the character, and thus you “know” how it will end. I would hazard a guess that many of those same writers who like to write torture fics for Reid probably don't want to see the character suffer peril on the actual show, since as they're watching it, they don't know how it will end. I look at “Angels and Demons” as a prime example- we all got into a tizzy because Reid was in peril, especially considering we didn't know how it would end. When you know how it will end, it's much easier to place the character through trauma, because at least you know the character will wind up unscathed. 2) For myself, when I was just starting to flex my writing muscles, I started out using as much shock value as I could (at least as much as I could stomach). I had a lot of rape scenes and violence because that's what I knew would cause a reaction, and, as a writer, you want people to react to your work. As I got more developed as a writer, I learned about doing things that could cause the same kind of reaction without resorting to that kind of shock value, plus I realized the more I did “violent” things, the more boring it got. There's only so many times you can write a rape scene before it gets old, and because I like challenging myself as a writer, I looked to other things to create the necessary reactions. So this is what I think many of those whompers might be going through. They watch CM, know that it places a premium on violence, and “up the ante”, just because they know it will get a reaction. Eventually they'll just get tired of it, and learn to do other things to create tension in the story- they just need to get through this phase first.

I always believed that in Season 1, Mandy Patinkin genuinely liked being on the show, only for it to turn sometime in Season 2, perhaps while filming the finale. Patinkin seems to be the type who really gets into his roles, so he had to dig deep and really feel the mourning of Sarah for that storyline to work. Perhaps he took it a bit too far and it caused him to have a change of heart going into Season 3. I will also point out that depression doesn't hit when you're around people- it hits when you're alone, when you can truly think about it. So if the material was going to get to Patinkin, he wasn't going to show it on set. Still, I think the turning point had to have been S2. I look at his performances in S1 and compare them to S2 and he looks more engaged in S1 than in S2. It coincides with a shift in the show's tone, since it got a bit more formulaic (and graphic, I think) in S2 (not that I think it got worse because I believe Edward Allen Bernero knew how to write a procedural, but his style was a bit more simplistic than Jeff Davis' was).

Reid just seems to be the shorthand for “whatever cool thing the writer read about on Google”, nothing more.

The scarier part than Scott Walker simply existing is that there's a sizeable electorate who agrees with him. Chances are he wouldn't do these things if he felt that people wouldn't vote for him otherwise.

I agree, it's sad, and ultimately counterproductive. The arguments sound no different than the people who yell “check your priviledge” at me assuming that because I'm a white man I can't possibly have something valuable to say on a particular topic. I never understand the thought process- it's like arguing with a wall. Don't they understand that, eventually, no one really listens to the wall?

I don't think Hollywood executives ask those questions- that's more of the domain of the numerous bloggers out there who think because they have a web page they're “enlightened”- but I do believe they're aware of them. Stuff like the Bechdel Test have been around for decades, and the recent “uproar” over the characterization of Natasha in Avengers: Age of Ultron indicates that special interest groups still hold some sway in the conversations about culture, and, no matter how irrational an executive may think it is, they have to be aware of it. At the end of the day, Hollywood is a business, and an important part of that business is image. Certain things can sell despite the controversy or because they court it (like Eminem does), while other things need to avoid assaults to the image Hollywood wants to project. If a “wholesome family comedy” comes out and a prominent blogger writes that the film is sexist because the lead female character is “just a collection of stereotypes”, it may not matter that only one person really holds that opinion- it will have an effect. Since we're a society that's never been taught critical thinking, it doesn't take much for one person's thoughts to mushroom into millions of people who agree, and that will cut into the film's bottom line. That's why I think there are a lot of Hollywood executives who “scrub clean” certain characters, not because they agree with what special interest groups say but because they simply want to avoid their wrath. Thus we wind up with “sanitary” but bland characters, simply because in an executive's mind, they can't market a product if it draws the wrong kind of attention. Sure, it stands to reason that Hollywood should just release its movies and let us, the audience, decide what movies would succeed, but businesses can't operate like that. They have to make sure their products can be given every reasonable chance to be successful, so they have to make sure their movies will be warmly received by the target audience. Yeah, we can tell them until we're blue in the face that we want good characters, but the experienced marketer knows that even the potential for a character to be misconstrued and poorly received could derail the entire project. It's just not worth it to the executive if their movie becomes a critical darling but a commercial flop, only because some scriptwriter didn't realize they wrote their black character like a gangster. Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying I agree with this. I just think this happens in Hollywood boardrooms and is at play when things like JJ's characterization appears. It just underlines how important it is for us to get our voices out and remind Hollywood that they have other sources of fan reaction other than Jezebel and Antia Sarkeesian. I like to think that the tide is turning and that, as society as a whole better understands the Internet, we'll get less pandering and we'll get better thought put into products. We just have to make sure we become part of the conversation first.

I think there's a number of things at play when it comes to Lori Weston, the blonde character on Hawaii 5-0. I'll take the fans at their word since I don't watch that show, but it does seem to be a bit of a trend when it comes to female characters- and other minority characters- who get "elevated" from support status. First, I would point out that many of Hollywood's writers are at least in their 40s, and thus they're at least 20 years past when their interests and attitudes fully formed. 20 years ago, in the '90s, was pretty much when Hollywood started to think about diversity in its programming beyond giving it a token acceptance (Seinfeld, for example, wasn't commissioned until a female friend- who turned into Elaine- was added to the cast), but even then, consideration wasn't always thought out or thorough. So we still have a generation of writers who, when creating a show, think "male first" with their thought processes, if only because subconsciously they know no other way of doing things, plus the majority of "well written characters"- the ones writers are inspired by- were male as well. The '90s was still a period where fare that didn't appeal to the "white male" was, for the lack of better words, "ghettoized"- if you had a show with a black lead or a female lead, executives would think it fits on its own "niche" network (like BET) or would only gain a "niche" audience, so if you wanted an "everyman" show, the lead had to be a white male. Attitudes about this are slowly changing, but writers have been slow to adapt, in large part because their own attitudes are a bit behind. I think the other part- and this might be strange, considering the first point- is society's craving for more diversity within its culture. It's what I call the "social justice warrior" phenomenon, the main driving force behind the quest for greater diversity. Since Hollywood had, for years, perpetuated many stereotypes about minorities- the "black gangsta", the fiery Latina, the lazy Mexican, the miserly Jew, etc.- minority characters tend to get much more heavily scrutinized than white male characters do, mostly because of their identity (ironic that). To me, the motive behind it is rational- many of those stereotypes are damaging, and they have been overused to the point where they're essentially cliches. I just think sometimes, as it often does with SJWs, it goes too far, with some complaining about the slightest of flaws just because they don't want a minority character to be "weak", without understanding a flawless character is already a weak one. As a result of this, a lot of Hollywood writers I believe are afraid to write in any lead character who isn't a white male, and they refuse to populate their shows with people who are not males, simply because writers don't want to be bothered worried about what some special interest group thinks and would rather have the audience focus on the stories and characters. Think about it for a second. With a female character, you're almost always going to be guaranteed to get the following questions right off the bat: -Does the writer sexualize her? -Does she care about having a family or places her family interests first? -Is her conflict between family versus her career? -Does she like pink and have any other "girly" interests? -Is she typically the "emotional" centre of the team, the only one who displays any warmth or empathy? -Does she need to get rescued at some point during the story? -How pre-occupied is she with men? Does she have any other desires? -Is a big part of her story about "what it's like to be a woman in the field"? -Does she actually contribute to solving the story's important conflicts at hand, or does she merely go along with what the male characters say? -Does she only fight women? Are other women the only ones allowed to inflict any pain on her? -Does she owe her presence on the team to being the wife/girlfriend/sister of a male team member? ...and so on. There are many other questions that get asked of a female character almost routinely that will almost never be asked of a male character, and I think that's far more damaging to diversity on screen than Hollywood attitudes. Hollywood attitudes still need to change- we don't have enough Joss Whedons who will write female characters who are actually characters instead of token caricatures- but I also think we as a society have to stop asking 21 questions about a minority character when they pop up. There was an excellent article I read about a black man who said he identified more with white heroes than the black ones Hollywood "gave" him because the white ones were far more compelling, and he basically argued that creators should be creators and given the freedom to create what they want instead of having to cater to the whims of special interest groups who may never be satisfied anyway. Truth is, we're not going to defeat stereotypes if all we get are bland, token characters, ones that pay lip service to diversity but drive audiences nuts (like Weston and JJ). The only way we'll ever defeat stereotypes is we create strong characters, people audiences can relate to and find compelling. We shouldn't also be afraid of stereotypes- if used well, they can be compelling drama (I point to this as an example that stereotypical stories- like the "damsel in distress"- can be done well). Yes, we should encourage writers to "think outside the box" and, say, make their "hard-nosed, maverick and snarky cop" a woman, because there's no reason the role should be only male. However, at the same time, we should let these characters arrive organically with the proper care and attention paid to them- because if we want more memorable minority characters, we need to make sure we've got them first.

Hopefully this gets resolved soon. I understand the strike is finished (just from what I saw from Google). If you ask me, though, I would deem transit an essential service and forbid strikes. Just like the police, firefighters and healthcare workers- the public cannot be held hostage.

...and what ultimately derails them. Perhaps it's the human in us that we're afraid of our own failures, but far too many authors are afraid of placing flaws on their characters out of the fear that the audience will reject them, when the opposite is more overwhelmingly true.

I honestly think Erica Messer is driven by feminism. Not that this is, inherently, a bad thing- I know I've raked CM over the coals on it many times, but it's more about the misapplication of feminism than the concept itself (which shouldn't be a dirty word), and I think it applies in this case. It's not just JJ that has undergone a radical transformation on CM in the past few years. We've also seen: -A disproportionate rise in the amount of male victims (and male victims being used as pathetic pawns) -The reduction in the role of the male characters on the show (even Morgan, who's essentially just a "prop" for how "tough" JJ is) -An overemphasis on stories involving families and other "soap opera" plots (stereotypical female interests) -An increase in the prominence of Garcia (albeit this has been going on since S3) Now, it could be argued that the "non-roles" of Blake and Kate counteract this, but I think it helps reinforce it. Consider this- the only male character of note who was added to the cast- Mateo Cruz- was essentially just used as a "support" character for JJ, whereas Blake and Kate got actual storylines, as well as family figures and friendships. The only thing we know about Cruz is that he had a part in "200"- we've yet to know if he's got a wife, kids, ambitions, dirty laundry, etc. I also find it very interesting that the only storylines Morgan and Reid really got were girlfriends, and that Hotch had to endure grief that he couldn't save Haley (not just from Roy, but also in "Route 66"). Rossi may have had the veteran storyline (but that was at Joe Mantegna's insistence), but he also wound up getting a long lost daughter. So I look at JJ, the all-powerful, all-knowing, pretending to care "Supermom" as the icing on what appears to be a very, very pink cake at CM. Of course, this still leaves the question about why JJ was chosen as the "special" girl. There's only speculation, but I suspect Messer may have wanted Prentiss for that role (given that Prentiss is more of a natural at being a badass than JJ is) but decided against it after Paget Brewster decided she only wanted to stay for that one year. She may have also thought that a new character being used as a "supergirl" would result in the fanbase not giving her a chance, so JJ- whom the fans already knew- was used in this role. I also believe that JJ already possessed qualities Messer liked, such as the fact she's already a mother (whereas Prentiss wasn't). Whether or not this is all good is up for debate (and I know we've debated it countless times). I think it could have been good- I think of Scandal (before it went off the rails) as proof that "feminist" doesn't have to mean "bad"- but it simply isn't, simply because Messer fails at the basic fundamentals of storywriting. When it comes to JJ, we could have had at least a tolerable character if the numerous opportunities for flaws really did provide an effective payoff. Perhaps S11 will provide hope, but I'm losing patience.

Depends. If I were on set one day and everyone else was on set all week, then I might be okay with given little to do. I might worry that my paycheque might make the network look at axing me if they want to cut costs, but that's just me. However, if I were on set all week (and Blake appeared to) and the only lines they gave me were "let's deliver the profile", I'd be pretty upset. I credit Jeanne Tripplehorn for not bashing CBS after the fact (or during the fact), but I wouldn't blame her if she actually was upset.

Eolivet, this seems to be a familiar problem with the show- there's just so much they could do if only it was on a better written show. The writers made the fatal mistake of heaping this show with mysteries- since this was supposed to be just a “popcorn thriller” and since Red can carry scenes by himself, they could have kept this as a procedural and still made something special.

Side point- I do think in the earlier seasons (especially in the Gideon days, before Reid was a punchline) Morgan actually was big brotherly towards him. I blame the writers for the shift, because it's their fault Reid is basically the butt of the BAU's jokes. If Morgan was characterized properly I doubt he'd be as mean as the writers depict him. Just thought I'd share that- I'll take it to the Reid or Morgan thread if need be. On to the topic...I suppose you could reinterpret the scene in "The Lesson" as an example of Blake projecting Ethan onto Reid. I just think something like that takes way too much interpretation and leaves too much room for error. I thought, then as now, that scene didn't really give off any kind of "motherly" vibe- it felt more like a "friendly confidant", with Blake only really being privy to that information because Reid asked her to drive him to a payphone. I sort of doubt that Reid would have told anyone if it wasn't for that. I also really felt that, early on, the writers tried a bit too hard making Blake and Reid "BFFs", with "Ethan" thrown in at the last moment to explain it all (when that wasn't necessary, as ForeverAlone pointed out). At least the vaudeville hook had comic value- what's CM's excuse?

When they brought up Ethan, it never really resonated with me, mostly because Alex Blake never even alluded to it, or any kind of tragedy, even. She was just always this smart but quiet woman, letting her work do the talking for her. There's a deeper character in there, but the show, for some reason, never explored that. I also have to agree, after reading things here, that it is pretty lazy to simply insert a tragedy into a character's story. As we've seen with JJ, the tactic just doesn't work- it's not enough to give a character hardships if they have no payoff. We all have losses and hardships, so just because a character has them too doesn't make them special. The challenges those hardships induce in the character is what makes them special, a concept far too few writers seem to grasp. I don't care if your character has twenty lost grandmothers- if they don't mean anything, what's the point? As for Ethan, this was something that should have been established right away, even if his name wasn't brought up at first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during “The Call” Blake never showed any greater emotion over the death of the boy, which she should have shown if it had happened to her. They could have also had her- or the other profilers, who are supposed to be perceptive to this stuff- allude to her affection for Reid in this way. Ethan could have also been a victim of John Curtis (whose storyline with Blake, though still with its faults, was better done). There's a million different ways to have done it without a “tacked on” finale that was for nothing except “shock value”.

I'll see how Aisha Tyler is like, but I think that if CBS felt they had to go with the “token minority hire” they should have just brought back Meta Goulding, since I thought she was great as Jordan Todd. Further to this point, it only makes sense- if you've got a vacancy, you'd rather fill it with someone you know than someone you don't. I want to give Tyler a chance (reservedly) though I believe this was a missed opportunity.

I wonder if this means Morgan is toast. :( TV never likes having two minorities on the same team... As for Tyler herself, I only really remember her as the (awful) new host of Whose Line Is It Anyway?...she doesn't have too much presence so I'm leery about the hire. I hope I am wrong though.

I don't care if he's too old- Vinnie Jones would be perfect.

I think Messer might know that a character needs hardships, but I don't think she understands it. That's what decides it for me. If she did understand it, JJ's hardships would actually have an effect on her character, so much so that she has to struggle and find some way to overcome the challenge that's befallen her. As JustMyOpinion has said before, JJ has had numerous opportunities for a challenge- yet it never seems to arrive. The other part of the “amateur” equation is that an amateur writer falls victim to “favouritism”, where they won't allow their favourite character to face any kind of reprecussions for what they did lest (they fear) the audience will reject the character because of it. They may let other characters make the occasional mistake and face the consequences, but never will “the favourite” suffer that same fate. This is what I think is happening to JJ.