TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[supposebly]

Ah, but it's only ever one glass of wine. Women don't really get drunk when down. Just really sad looking at that glass. And of course, there will be candles in the bathroom.

 

Unless you are Bridget Jones and drink on your sofa. Then it's a whole bottle.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8iTZm8-mbA

[merylinkid]

I'm just trying to figure out how you hold the glass in your wet soapy hand without dropping it.

 

And let's not even talk about all the effort to light all those damn candles.   If you have that much energy go do something with your time besides sit and mope in the tub.

[ganesh]

My mother was a nurse for 43 years, and whenever she saw someone drinking in the bath or in a hottub, she would always say "that's how you get yeast infections." Of course, I had to learn this at 10. 

[backformore]

this isn't exactly a "trope"  but something that bugs me. 

On a Chicago news show -  the Blackhawks just won a playoff game.   A reporter goes out to a fan gathering, somewhere outside.   The camera shows -  A bunch of people in Blackhawks shirts standing around, bored, looking at their phones, milling around, nothing happening.  Then the reporter starts talking, the fans realize they are ON THE AIR, and start whooping and hollering.   the reporter is doing a kind of "look how excited everyone is, look at these wild fans celebrating!"   But they are only celebrating because someone with a camera crew asked "how excited are you?" 

 

It's just something that has always bugged me -  the TV news is CREATING a moment, and then reporting on it as though it wasn't created for the camera crew . 

[bmoore4026]

Ugh. The rain. A sure sign someone in down.

 

Or an instrumental of "Blues in the Night", at least in Looney Tunes cartoons.

[mansonlamps]

this isn't exactly a "trope" but something that bugs me.

On a Chicago news show - the Blackhawks just won a playoff game. A reporter goes out to a fan gathering, somewhere outside. The camera shows - A bunch of people in Blackhawks shirts standing around, bored, looking at their phones, milling around, nothing happening. Then the reporter starts talking, the fans realize they are ON THE AIR, and start whooping and hollering. the reporter is doing a kind of "look how excited everyone is, look at these wild fans celebrating!" But they are only celebrating because someone with a camera crew asked "how excited are you?"

It's just something that has always bugged me - the TV news is CREATING a moment, and then reporting on it as though it wasn't created for the camera crew .

Wow that initial behavior you described is incredibly unusual for Blackhawks fans!

[Linderhill]

I've always hated the trope that if a character on a show has been injured and is prescribed painkillers, you can automatically assume that this character will become addicted to those painkillers.  Because proper usage therapy don't exist.

[ganesh]

And every pro athlete ever. Also my dog is on painkillers and she's playing it up. 

[DeLurker]

Unless it it time for the character to meet a cute doctor or healthcare professional, but this may not be mutually exclusive to the painkiller addiction.

[meep.meep]

I don't know if this counts as a "trope" but it always bugs me.

 

The phrase "last best hope" is beloved by science fiction writers, is pretentious, and means nothing.  If it's your last hope, it's the last one.  If it's the last best one, then there must be another one, so it's not the last one.  If it's the best because it's the only one, then it's the only hope.

 

They had Tyrian Lannister say it, so it must have spread to fantasy as well.

[ganesh]

Last, best hope only worked for Babylon 5. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I've always hated the trope that if a character on a show has been injured and is prescribed painkillers, you can automatically assume that this character will become addicted to those painkillers.  Because proper usage therapy don't exist.

 

A corollary to this is the trope where experimenting with drugs of any kind leads to addiction. With no exceptions. And that goes double for teenagers. Because drugs are bad, mmmkay?

Edited June 13, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[DittyDotDot]

A corollary to this is the trope where experimenting with drugs of any kind leads to addiction. With no exceptions. And that goes double for teenagers. Because drugs are bad, mmmkay?

 

This reminds me of a story my grandfather used to tell my siblings and I about how when he turned 18 he bought a bottle of whiskey and put it in the cupboard. Every morning he'd take a nip of it before going out to do chores and when the bottle was empty he tossed it. But every morning after he'd still reach up in the cupboard for that bottle which no longer existed. This is the point in the story when he would look us steely in the eyes and say, " I was addicted."

 

Oh, I miss my grandfather and his goofy ways of trying to keep us kids on the straight and narrow.

Edited June 13, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[Cobalt Stargazer]

That? Is adorable.

[Ambrosefolly]

The only time I saw a character be able to take drugs and immediately quit was on Degrassi:TNG. Craig was taking meth or cocaine and Manny took some as well to feel more comfortable, but she had such a bad trip she never did it again on the show. 

[MaryPatShelby]

I've always hated the trope that if a character on a show has been injured and is prescribed painkillers, you can automatically assume that this character will become addicted to those painkillers.  Because proper usage therapy don't exist.

Or they refuse the painkillers, because manly men and such.

[Chaos Theory]

 I love like the tropes on Morality.  I like stories about complicated morality which is probably why I like the shows I do.  There is nothing more boring to me then people stringent in what is right and wrong.   

 

Is downward spiral a trope?  Because I love a good downward spiral as well.  

[Bastet]

The only time I saw a character be able to take drugs and immediately quit was on Degrassi:TNG. Craig was taking meth or cocaine and Manny took some as well to feel more comfortable, but she had such a bad trip she never did it again on the show.

 

Roseanne took a healthy approach; Darlene experimented with a few drugs, wasn't into any of them and moved on.  It's all revealed in a couple of casual conversations, rather than ever being a plot.  Very refreshing.

[ganesh]

The drug trope always makes me think of this.

 

 

 

[Joe]

So drugs helped him come to terms with himself. That's good. They can do some good after all.

[Danny Franks]

So drugs helped him come to terms with himself. That's good. They can do some good after all.

 

I was gonna say, 'he was gay before he tried pot too'. But it's amazingly open minded of Michelle Bachmann to put out a campaign supporting both recreational drugs and homosexuality. I have unfairly maligned this woman.

[andromeda331]

While I don't out mind the secretly in love with another person or each other like Niles was in love with Daphne on Frasier but too afraid to tell her or Luke and Lorelai with each other, Castle and Beckett and so many others. What I do hate is the trope that secretly being in love with means they have the right to treat the other person horribly when they start dating someone else and constantly trash who ever their dating.

Like Niles because he was in love with Daphne he was completely okay that he'd show up when Frasier was trying to set her up with another guy to ruin it and only be happy when the guy was gay, try to convince her to dump Donny after she came to him for advice after getting engaged. It was also perfectly okay to record her while she's sleeping, to do many other creepy things because he was in love with her.

Just like it was perfectly okay for Luke to be a jerk to every guy Lorelai dated and even have the nerve to be a complete ass to Lorelai accidently dated a younger guy. In fact Lorelai gets yelled because...she doesn't see Luke's crush and she should have and what? Wait around while he gets up the courage to ask her out? She's not allowed to date anyone until the guy who supposedly secretly in love with her and treats every guy she dates like their complete jerks manages to get up the courage to ask her out? Or date secretly so not to hurt his feelings? Instead of being mad at him trashing her every guy she dates. Its not just Luke, Lorelai treated Luke horribly and constantly trashed Nicole when he was dating her, lecturing him on everything including their marriage.

Castle and Beckett constantly put each other's dates down...because their secretly in love with each other.  I'm sorry but what about being secretly in love gives them the right to be completely horrible? If it wasn't for the secretly in love they'd be called on their behavior and rightly so. But being secretly in love...some how makes it okay. The audience we're suppose to be rooting for them or finding it funny, cute or romantic. I think the opposite. You would think being secretly in love with someone you'd actually want them to be happy. If they were in a relationship making them happy, you'd be happy for them. Or that the person would start getting ticked off at them for constantly trashing their dates and decide to end their friendships.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Like Niles because he was in love with Daphne he was completely okay that he'd show up when Frasier was trying to set her up with another guy to ruin it and only be happy when the guy was gay, try to convince her to dump Donny after she came to him for advice after getting engaged. It was also perfectly okay to record her while she's sleeping, to do many other creepy things because he was in love with her.

 

I have to defend Niles here. While he did indeed hover at the edges of Daphne's life for a long time before she knew he loved her (hell, Roz knew before Daphne did, and Niles didn't even like Roz at first) I wouldn't go so far as to say that he was creepy or inappropriate. Clingy, maybe, but looking at his marriage to the never-seen Maris from the outside, I can see why the guy would have issues with personal space and whatnot. Then again, I'm one of those people who could have watched Daphne and Niles cutting vegetables together for the next decade and been perfectly happy with it, so I'm biased. :-)

[DeLurker]

Daphne and Niles were my favorite part of Frasier.  Although I deeply love Daphne's brother Simon played by Anthony LaPaglia.  He was a riot.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Daphne and Niles were my favorite part of Frasier.  Although I deeply love Daphne's brother Simon played by Anthony LaPaglia.  He was a riot.

 

Same. They were part of the heart and soul of the show. Definitely.

[Wiendish Fitch]

While I don't out mind the secretly in love with another person or each other like Niles was in love with Daphne on Frasier but too afraid to tell her or Luke and Lorelai with each other, Castle and Beckett and so many others. What I do hate is the trope that secretly being in love with means they have the right to treat the other person horribly when they start dating someone else and constantly trash who ever their dating.

Like Niles because he was in love with Daphne he was completely okay that he'd show up when Frasier was trying to set her up with another guy to ruin it and only be happy when the guy was gay, try to convince her to dump Donny after she came to him for advice after getting engaged. It was also perfectly okay to record her while she's sleeping, to do many other creepy things because he was in love with her.

Just like it was perfectly okay for Luke to be a jerk to every guy Lorelai dated and even have the nerve to be a complete ass to Lorelai accidently dated a younger guy. In fact Lorelai gets yelled because...she doesn't see Luke's crush and she should have and what? Wait around while he gets up the courage to ask her out? She's not allowed to date anyone until the guy who supposedly secretly in love with her and treats every guy she dates like their complete jerks manages to get up the courage to ask her out? Or date secretly so not to hurt his feelings? Instead of being mad at him trashing her every guy she dates. Its not just Luke, Lorelai treated Luke horribly and constantly trashed Nicole when he was dating her, lecturing him on everything including their marriage.

Castle and Beckett constantly put each other's dates down...because their secretly in love with each other.  I'm sorry but what about being secretly in love gives them the right to be completely horrible? If it wasn't for the secretly in love they'd be called on their behavior and rightly so. But being secretly in love...some how makes it okay. The audience we're suppose to be rooting for them or finding it funny, cute or romantic. I think the opposite. You would think being secretly in love with someone you'd actually want them to be happy. If they were in a relationship making them happy, you'd be happy for them. Or that the person would start getting ticked off at them for constantly trashing their dates and decide to end their friendships.

 

The older I get, the less patience I have with this trope. Yes, I get that unrequited love sucks... but for the love of Joe, contrary to what writers try to convince us, it is not a soul-crushing, life-destroying tragedy! That's how middle-schoolers think, not adults! Just once -just once!- I want a character to sit our mopey, unhappy-in-unrequited-love protagonist down, and say,

 

"Look, I know it's agonizing that he/she doesn't return your affection because he/she doesn't know and you're too scared to tell him/her, so let me give you some advice: quit your pathetic, navel-gazing, Eponine weeping in the moonlight routine and just tell them how you feel! For crying Pete, what is the worst that could happen? Oh, no, boo hoo, they don't love you! So that means... nothing in your relationship has changed. You're still friends, you're not getting any sexy time, everything is exactly the same. Hell, this is actually an ideal situation, because by confessing your feelings you literally have nothing to lose. How is this a problem?

 

"And while we're on the subject, get over this disgusting, childish, entitled behavior of mistreating or talking smack about your crush's dates or love interests. Why should he/she be denied romantic experiences just because you're a verbally constipated, socially half-witted coward who can't even be honest about their feelings? Just as no one in the workplace owes you a job, no one owes you affection. You hear me? NO ONE. Love is special because it is given freely and naturally, not because it's demanded or expected like a Christmas bonus. I don't care how wonderful you think you are, your friend doesn't have to love you. Yeah, it sucks Ivanhoe loved Rowena instead of Rebecca. Yeah, it sucks Marius loved Cosette instead of Eponine. Too bad, so sad, but life? It. Goes. On. The world doesn't stop spinning just because you're miserable. So grow up, learn some humility, and, if you'll pardon the cliche, there are loads of fish in the sea, so stop your pissing and moaning and go find your own great white whale or little mermaid, you idiot!"

Edited June 18, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[ChromaKelly]

There is also Persons A and B are *perfect* for each other, but don't realize it. Person A is dating Person C, who is totally awful in every way, so that we don't feel bad when he/she gets harshly dumped and so we can better root for A and B. But wait! Because A is dating C, B has to go date D just as A was realizing their feelings for B!

[legaleagle53]

There is also Persons A and B are *perfect* for each other, but don't realize it. Person A is dating Person C, who is totally awful in every way, so that we don't feel bad when he/she gets harshly dumped and so we can better root for A and B. But wait! Because A is dating C, B has to go date D just as A was realizing their feelings for B!

 

Otherwise known as the entire history of Ross and Rachel's relationship on Friends.

[ByTor]

what is the worst that could happen? Oh, no, boo hoo, they don't love you! So that means... nothing in your relationship has changed. You're still friends, you're not getting any sexy time, everything is exactly the same. Hell, this is actually an ideal situation, because by confessing your feelings you literally have nothing to lose. How is this a problem?

Well, to be fair, it could mean that the person you confessed your feelings to now feels awkward around you and gradually the awkwardness ends the friendship.

[ganesh]

If you're 20. Adults irl typically can move past it. But everyone on tv has the emotional IQ of an 11th grader. 

[Demented Daisy]

Headbutting Heroes.  Sam and Dean; Nathan and Duke; Dave and Vince.  I'm sure there are others, but those are right off the top of my head.

 

Love the banter.  :-)

[Chaos Theory]

I don't mind unrequited love what I don't particularly like is tru luv relationships. Scandal despite its soap opera nature and propensity for overoughy speeches is a good show the only major flaw is the relationship between Oliva and Fitz. As a jumping point for the show it was fine but to insist that these two are meant to be is insane.

[Writing Wrongs]

I'm not sure if this is a trope or not, but it seems every show I watch has to have a "film noir" episode. Fringe, Charmed, Smallville, Pretty Little Liars. When did that become a thing?

[AntiBeeSpray]

I'm not sure if this is a trope or not, but it seems every show I watch has to have a "film noir" episode. Fringe, Charmed, Smallville, Pretty Little Liars. When did that become a thing?

 

Don't forget Castle and Bones. They did it too.

 

I know. It's getting old.

[Raja]

I hate when they do go the fantasy noir  way back episode they take their multi ethnic 21st century cast and drop them into America's segregated Jim Crow past where suddenly nobody recognizes race and sex roles of that day.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I hate when they do go the fantasy noir  way back episode they take their multi ethnic 21st century cast and drop them into America's segregated Jim Crow past where suddenly nobody recognizes race and sex roles of that day.

 

Not to start up a big debate or anything, but I can see why they do that. Modern sensibilities do not take well to the idea that separate water fountains and "No Irish need apply" were once acceptable.

[Raja]

To use the classic use of the term white washing our history does nobody any good.

[HalcyonDays]

I've always hated the trope that if a character on a show has been injured and is prescribed painkillers, you can automatically assume that this character will become addicted to those painkillers.  Because proper usage therapy don't exist.

 

How about the drug trope of "The Fastest Acting Medication in Human History."

 

Someone on TV is either having a heart attack, a headache, something, and they (or someone) forces a pill down their throat and magically, one second later it works. A select few drugs do this, but in TV land, pills are immediately effective once in the person's mouth, even though they've barely swallowed it, it's not be digested/processed by the stomach, and the drug hasn't had a chance to hit the liver or kidney, or whatever it needs to do to work.

 

I saw recently some show where the character is having some seizure or something, someone else pours some liquid down their throat and they are perfectly fine one second later, they are fine. Drugs take time to absorb and do their thing.

 

Also - the fact that TV shows ignore illness transmission in some cases. The specific one I saw recently - in Texas Rising, where one character is dying of tuberculosis (i.e., consumption). They kept showing him coughing up and spitting in the air or ground a ton of blood, or coughing a bloody spray into the air, and all I could thing about was "Well, I guess all of you have tuberculoss now". I know people back then didn't know it was the Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacterium at the time and was spread by airborne droplets, but there would be a scene with like 5 guys in close quarters and the character lets out this hacking spray of bloody lung bacteria into the air, and I'm like....Damn...you guys are all dead.

 

Okay, maybe the above it partly due to the time period and health ignorance, but I am sure even back then, some people didn't want to be coughed or hacked on, but it completely took me out of the scenes.

[Jack Shaftoe]

I'm starting to really hate season finale cliffhangers. It seems that for many a showrunner it's more important to have people talking about the season finale than people liking it. So nowadays every other show has somebody shot in the season finale but in such a way they can make it so the character has survived after all (if enough people on twitter want him/her back) or the protagonist's mother/father/sibling shows up out of the blue, despite being supposed to be dead or something along those lines. Is that really so beneficial from a ratings point of view as the powers that be seem to believe? Okay, maybe a bit more viewers will tune in for the next season premiere but if the cliffhanger is resolved unsatisfactorily they'll stop watching anyway.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[andromeda331]

I'm starting to really hate season finale cliffhangers.

 

Me too. For the reason you stated and also ever since the Glades got canceled after their cliffhanger, I'm worried it'll happen again. It stinks because you'll never find out what happened. SOAP also ended on cliffhanger and many others.

[lucindabelle]

Nobody who has unrequited on TV ever has it unreturned when once it's dclared.

 

I mean never. Never never.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Nobody who has unrequited on TV ever has it unreturned when once it's dclared.

 

I mean never. Never never.

 

Unless you're Brian Krakow.

[lucindabelle]

Its not a bad name since Sleepy Hallow is the one of the most recent casualties of it. It was a great show before the writers fell in love with Katrina. I made it to the end but it was really hard to do. It was so hard to stomach all of the "greatness" Katrina supposedly was.  Once Upon a Time is another casualty.  Lang Lang and Wesley Crusher are early examples. LOST when they fell in love with Ben.  General Hospital when fell in love with Sonny. Charmed was another. I hate when it happens.  

Oh so much this. I LOVED Sleepy Hollow so much its first season. It was wild, silly, fast moving, unpredictable I even gave it a pass when they had people in the 16th century speaking High German as though the English vowel shift hadn't happened two centuries earlier.

 

I didn't make it to the end of season two. I just. didnt. care.

 

Plus which, stories that rely on devils and angels always hit a wall for me, because i'm like, if there is a G-d in this story, why doesn't He just step in? I ahd the same problem with "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

 

I'm all for the supernatural but please leave out the divine. It raises too many questions which writers never bother to address.

 

And Grey's, I got tired of all the super-episode tragedies and finally gave up. I tried to watch an episode on demand and got so bored. I used to love that show. I think it jumped shark when there was a long lost sister.

[magicdog]

I hate when they do go the fantasy noir  way back episode they take their multi ethnic 21st century cast and drop them into America's segregated Jim Crow past where suddenly nobody recognizes race and sex roles of that day.

 

This.  Like it or not, things were different in another place and time.  It's not just Jim Crow either;  My niece years ago was watching an episode of some TV show there's a flashback to the first Thanksgiving in colonial Massachusetts.  One of the characters from the series is played by an Asian actress named Brenda Song.  She appeared in the historical scenes as a Pilgrim - except there were no Hmong/Thai women in 17th century Plymouth, Massachusetts! 

 

Pretending things didn't happen or changing history to make people "feel better" does no one any favors.

 

Reminds me of when Spike Lee was whining about the lack of blacks in Saving Private Ryan.  The ignorance of some boggles.

[Danny Franks]

Nobody who has unrequited on TV ever has it unreturned when once it's dclared.

 

I mean never. Never never.

 

Well, Stargate Universe did have the guy who was unrequitedly in love with the girl be told, 'you're my friend, but I don't like you like that. But being my friend is important too, and it's hurtful when you act like it isn't'. Which was a novel take on it.

[Chaos Theory]

Don't forget Castle and Bones. They did it too.

I know. It's getting old.

I don't know. I thought they were great. Plus they look fun to act in especially in longer running shows.

[AntiBeeSpray]

I don't know. I thought they were great. Plus they look fun to act in especially in longer running shows.

 

Fair point.

 

Just wasn't a fan of the one in Bones tbh.

[MaryMitch]

I hate the "if we see a fat person, they are always eating something disgusting" trope.

[Janet Snakehole]

Conversely, I also hate the skinny lady who chows down on everything unhealthy with no consequences! Gilmore Girls, looking at you. I would much rather see a character who actually diets and works out and is skinny, or even passes up food offered occasionally. Not because I think that is more laudable or anything, but because it is probably more true to how actors maintain their bodies.

Another one I hate is bickering lovers. I hate the slap slap kiss trope, I would rather see couples who enjoy each others' company.

[mansonlamps]

I remember seeing Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel being interviewed once and the (male) host asked them if they ate like Rory and Lorelei. They kind of laughed and rolled their eyes and were like "oh God no!" I assume the host was kidding and did not buy into the fact that women that look like those two can regularly eat like linebackers and never work out.