TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[paulvdb]

I'm not a pet person and I don't like when a character doesn't like pets (usually dogs), has to take care of someone else's dog and ends up liking the dog. Just once I'd like the character to still not like pets. Or even say up front: "I'm not a pet person. Find someone else to take care of your dog."

[Joe]

4 hours ago, paulvdb said:

I'm not a pet person and I don't like when a character doesn't like pets (usually dogs), has to take care of someone else's dog and ends up liking the dog. Just once I'd like the character to still not like pets. Or even say up front: "I'm not a pet person. Find someone else to take care of your dog."

But how can whacky hijinks ensue or important lessons be learned? Surely you don't want TV writers to actually challenge themselves to come up with more original ideas, do you?

[Kel Varnsen]

On 04/10/2017 at 11:35 PM, memememe76 said:

With Stranger Things and Inhumans, it appears as if I am supposed to finding it amusing when aliens steal stuff from stores, whether it's Eggos or designer suits. I do not find it amusing. 

To be fair on Stranger Thingd it wasn't an alien but a girl who was being held  captive anf experimented on/abused but managed to escape.

[vibeology]

Agreed. I'm not pro-stealing but I'm more forgiving of someone who steals food because they're hungry than I am someone who steals something for other reasons. I'm also more forgiving of a child than I am an adult because in almost every case an adult should know better whereas a child may not. I guess this is a lot to say I'm okay with Eleven and not okay with Black Bolt.

[bmasters9]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:58 PM, CoderLady said:

On cop shows, whenever there are loyal family members or friends of a victim/culprit who want to take the law into their own hands or participate in the investigation, the main characters dissuade them. There's lots of "No, no -- you can't. We have to follow the law, do this by the book, you're too close to this, etc..." 

IIRC, that was part of the storyline of the second-season original-recipe Five-O episode "Most Likely to Murder," OAD Feb. 11, 1970 on CBS. Lew Morgan (Tom Skerritt), the supposed widower of Marjorie Morgan, his wife, wanted to help Five-O and McGarrett in the investigation, but McGarrett ix-nayed that. McGarrett said, "You're not an outsider-- you're a cop and a good cop. But..."

Morgan questioned what it was that caused McGarrett to ix-nay. 

McGarrett said, "There's no place in a homicide for emotion, Lew-- you know that; I don't have to tell it to you."

Lew reminded McGarrett that his wife (Lew's) was just murdered.

McGarrett agreed: "Nobody knows that better than we do. Five-O and HPD have made this #1 priority; everything that can be done has been done. Now, please, Lew... I know how you must feel. Come on. Will you leave it to us, please? Go home, get some rest."

[ChromaKelly]

On 10/6/2017 at 5:26 AM, paulvdb said:

I'm not a pet person and I don't like when a character doesn't like pets (usually dogs), has to take care of someone else's dog and ends up liking the dog. Just once I'd like the character to still not like pets. Or even say up front: "I'm not a pet person. Find someone else to take care of your dog."

It's always the grumpy character who ends up grudgingly befriending the dog. 

[Lili]

Spotlight-Stealing Squad, when one or more characters dominate a show, leaving the other supposed main and recurring stars out of focus. Just because a side character becomes very popular, doesn't mean you need to make them the main focus of the show.

[magicdog]

I saw an episode of Make Room for Daddy today and it had something in its resolution which really bugged me:

 

In a handful of episodes from 1959, Annette Funicello plays an Italian exchange student named, Gina Minnelli.  While staying with Danny Williams' family, she is visited by a boy from her hometown named,  Mario who is from a wealthy aristocratic family.  While in town he expresses an interest in dating her.  Gina's over the moon due to the class divisions in her culture and she's happily dating the boy thinking something may come of it.  Meanwhile, the guy asks Danny for an audition because he's also a polished singer and hoped he'd be able to give him his big break.  Danny agrees as the guy can sing well.  

Eventually the shoe drops when Gina's mother writes a letter telling Gina that Mario has different intentions as he plans to use Danny and his influence to get into show biz and that meant getting close to Gina and eventually breaking her heart.  Danny is furious and tells him he can forget the audition and any other indulgences.  He rightfully added that manipulating Gina into thinking they could be an item was even worse than deceiving him.  The problem?

A boy Gina casually knows from school is witness to all this and gets Danny to reconsider.  He explains that on the football team there's a guy who the best player on the team and he knows it.  The guy is a jerk and a blowhard but he's talented and he still on the team.  He says that despite the character of the person, talent is still talent and it shouldn't be destroyed or hidden.  Danny relents about the audition but he still tells the boy he's no longer welcome at the house nor will he help him in any other way.

End of episode.

 

This pissed me off something royal!  Mario was dishonest and talent or no talent, he shouldn't have been granted the audition after the fact.  IRL, Danny would have put an end to the audition and most likely poisoned Mario's name to anyone else in the business.  Perhaps karma would have fallen into place as well.  Even the justification of the jerky football player doesn't work since a jerk athlete can only go so far before people decide he's not worth keeping around.  At best he might end up playing the Rose Bowl and then take his jerky personality with him to annoy everyone else in his life because he was Big Man On Campus (BMOC).  I also thought of the real life parallels in Hollywood in which performers "excuse" someone's bad behavior because they have so much talent (Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Harvey Weinstein et al).  This was a poor resolution IMO.  Even in 1959 I think audiences were fuming over it!

[Chaos Theory]

The big lie.

A storyline that revolves entirely around someone lying or not telling someone something that if they told them would essentially fix the problem,.  

[ganesh]

Or not asking a question people would in real life that would resolve the entire problem, cf., the entirety of Lost. 

[Chaos Theory]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

Or not asking a question people would in real life that would resolve the entire problem, cf., the entirety of Lost. 

One person alone in a room not asking the right question I can make allowances for.  We don't all think the same way and I have personally gotten in situations and repeated the story to friends and family and every last response was "why didn't you just do this?" and the reverse is true one of them tell me a story about a funny thing that happened to them and my response is to immediately have the answer that would have fixed the problem.

That being said having five people in a room is less likely that one of them won't at least come up with the right question so not having it at least be asked even if not the the right person or shot down by other people and later having that person be right is rather silly.  

[ganesh]

When a character disappears for a lengthy time and then reappears no one asks, "where did you go off to?"

[AntiBeeSpray]

Who's (Whose) the daddy (mommy). Such a bad and cheap soap opera trope. Hate when shows resort to it.

Break ups that happen without/with little explanation. So cheap and such a cop out.

Edited December 25, 2017 by AntiBeeSpray

[AntiBeeSpray]

Not a trope per say... but I HATE when shows have jerky editing and quick cuts. Soooo very distracting. Bad, bad, bad.

[ABay]

Yes, you shouldn't have to take dramamine to watch TV.

[Spartan Girl]

Characters that play the victim card solely to avoid accountability for their own actions.  It's like South Park said: when you let victimhood become a way of life, whether it's justified or not, sooner or later it just becomes a crutch to justify being awful. 

[Blergh]

When the background music/singing drowns TOTALLY drowns out all dialogue. Why  do they have the 'singers' wail like banshees when whispering mumblers are trying to make profound statements?

[ABay]

I hardly ever watch anything without the closed captioning on these days.

[paulvdb]

English is not my native language so it's already difficult enough for me to understand actors without loud background music, especially when they speak with a strong accent. So I always turn on subtitles when they are available.

[AntiBeeSpray]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:34 AM, ABay said:

Yes, you shouldn't have to take dramamine to watch TV.

Exactly. And I don't even have motion sickness. I don't get shows that have an obsession with it. CSI: Miami, The X Files and Sherlock, I'm talking to all of you. It's not cool or interesting. Just annoying. Along with posing a possible health risk for anyone who might have epilepsy. Especially photosensitive epilepsy. That kind of thing could trigger seizures in people due to the fast moving images. Wish they'd put a warning before any kind of tv show or movie that has that kind of content in it (like one that they show picture wise in the Wikipedia article).

 

9 hours ago, Blergh said:

When the background music/singing drowns TOTALLY drowns out all dialogue. Why  do they have the 'singers' wail like banshees when whispering mumblers are trying to make profound statements?

Word. The X Files ran into that one last season! That ending of Babylon was worthless due to it, even though it wasn't all that good imo.

Edited January 6, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[MaryPatShelby]

On 1/4/2018 at 7:34 AM, ABay said:

Yes, you shouldn't have to take dramamine to watch TV.

I have not yet been able to watch Friday Night Lights, which kills me.  I have done an episode and a half, twice, and gotten sick both times.  I've been putting off trying it with dramamine, because that just seems so weird to take to watch TV, but I know I have to.  I really want to watch that show.

[topanga]

TV doctors who can do everything.  Correction: TV residents, who are 20-somethings barely out of med school, already know how to diagnose, treat, operate, read CT scans and MRIs, perform surgery by themselves, and they are experts in every field of medicine besides the one they are currently learning. I watched a show tonight where a first-year resident was performing a TEE, which is a special type of echocardiogram that only a trained cardiologist can perform. Drives me crazy. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

On 1/13/2018 at 9:47 PM, topanga said:

TV doctors who can do everything.  Correction: TV residents, who are 20-somethings barely out of med school, already know how to diagnose, treat, operate, read CT scans and MRIs, perform surgery by themselves, and they are experts in every field of medicine besides the one they are currently learning. I watched a show tonight where a first-year resident was performing a TEE, which is a special type of echocardiogram that only a trained cardiologist can perform. Drives me crazy. 

Wouldn't Scully fit this trope sometimes? Not the TV residents part, but the TV doctors one in a way.

 

I'd like to add in... sex scenes that don't add up to much of anything. Grow up, show runners. I don't mind some teasing, but when it gets to the point where it kind of ruins things... no matter how good the acting or the chemistry is... then it's rather silly.

 

Spoiler

Last night's X Files was underwhelming to say the least. Waste of a perfectly good S rating. Just the usual you know what tease. So over that.

I partially take it back though, realizing that it was meant in part to be a mirror to 'All Things'. Still am not a fan of the bed room dialogue though.

Edited January 23, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[Laina]

On 1/5/2018 at 11:21 AM, Spartan Girl said:

Characters that play the victim card solely to avoid accountability for their own actions.  It's like South Park said: when you let victimhood become a way of life, whether it's justified or not, sooner or later it just becomes a crutch to justify being awful. 

THIS. It's how I feel about Elizabeth on GH. She's always cast in the victim, poor me role, when she does this shit to herself. She always does bad shit to other character, and always plays the victim. And then she always gets to skate for the horrible shit she does to other characters.

[andromeda331]

I was going to respond in Characters We Hate because its come up but it fits more on this on thread. Similar to the hating when character broke up with a character is secretly in love with someone they will treat the new girlfriend or boyfriend like crap. Be horrible to them and never once get called on it. The Will they or Won't They, one part or maybe both parts get engaged to someone else or get married only for one or both to admit their feelings and in FRIENDS case Rachel shows up to ruin Emily's wedding and Ross calls her the wrong name. But somehow new fiancé or spouse ends up the bad person, the crazy, person. Emily ends up accused of being a basket case. On Frasier we have Donny who decides to sue Daphne and they later show being horrible when they run into him when Niles and Daphne are on third wedding to a make their family happy; Mel who tries to make Nile embarrass himself in society, so she is clearly evil. Your not suppose to think how horrible it would be to have your fiancée leave you on the day of your wedding for someone else or three days after you were married. 

Also, its not romantic to see characters we are suppose to root for as couple cheating on their spouse to be with their true love even if that's the star of the show. It wasn't romantic that Carrie and Big had an affair behind his wife and her fiancé's back same with Rory and Dean. Its not romantic its not star-crossed, it makes both characters look crappy. I have never understood why I'm suppose to be routing for couples that involve cheating.      

Edited March 3, 2018 by andromeda331

[AntiBeeSpray]

Characters living in separate houses from one another for the sake of the plot. Hate this.

 

Spoiler

In terms of the XF: Scully lived in one in the most recent ep and it made no sense as the house didn't fit her as a character at all. She was just there since there was a ton of high tech equipment in it.

And Mulder being a complete tech phobe in his place.

Edited March 3, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[ratgirlagogo]

On 3/2/2018 at 6:56 PM, andromeda331 said:

Also, its not romantic to see characters we are suppose to root for as couple cheating on their spouse to be with their true love even if that's the star of the show. It wasn't romantic that Carrie and Big had an affair behind his wife and her fiancé's back same with Rory and Dean. Its not romantic its not star-crossed, it makes both characters look crappy. I have never understood why I'm suppose to be routing for couples that involve cheating.

I hate this too.  Unless the two characters really are in a Paolo and Francesca situation (arranged abusive loveless marriages, divorce is culturally and legally impossible ) it's mean, it's cowardly,  and  it's ugly.  

Edited March 4, 2018 by ratgirlagogo

[AntiBeeSpray]

Characters talking out stuff and then never finding out the end of it.

 

Spoiler

XF this means you. Hated it big time. Talk about a let down.

Edited March 15, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[AntiBeeSpray]

Characters giving up their children and then finding out that they're pregnant.

 

Spoiler

Yes all in another day on the X Files. Screw Chris Carter. I hate how cold Scully is about just having her and Mulder walk away from their own kid.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Characters giving up their children and then finding out that they're pregnant.

This is a trope?

[AntiBeeSpray]

Just now, Bastet said:

This is a trope?

I view it as one in a way. Or just really cheap writing.

Like a spare baby kind of thing. After giving up on the first one.

Edited March 24, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[OtterMommy]

2 minutes ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

I view it as one in a way. Or just really cheap writing.

Like a spare baby kind of thing. After giving up on the first one.

I've seen it happen enough times (maybe not the character "giving up" their child, but losing the child in some way) for it to qualify as both a trope and really cheap writing.

[AntiBeeSpray]

7 hours ago, nosleepforme said:

I'm kind of fed up with evil corporations or organizations hunting down people with special abilities or experimenting on people who will develop special abilities as a result, as seen on Jessica Jones, but also on Sense8 and countless other shows. Let's maybe find new origin stories and threats for characters with superpowers. 

X Files did that recently as well. Come on guys come up with something new!

[magicdog]

On 3/24/2018 at 8:17 AM, nosleepforme said:

I'm kind of fed up with evil corporations or organizations hunting down people with special abilities or experimenting on people who will develop special abilities as a result, as seen on Jessica Jones, but also on Sense8 and countless other shows. Let's maybe find new origin stories and threats for characters with superpowers. 

It may be a common trope but for me it makes sense.  Same if it were a rogue government doing it.  If word got out to them about such individuals, it would make sense to try to capture them for their own benefit and/or the safety of the public at large.

[Sara2009]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:56 PM, andromeda331 said:

I was going to respond in Characters We Hate because its come up but it fits more on this on thread. Similar to the hating when character broke up with a character is secretly in love with someone they will treat the new girlfriend or boyfriend like crap. Be horrible to them and never once get called on it. The Will they or Won't They, one part or maybe both parts get engaged to someone else or get married only for one or both to admit their feelings and in FRIENDS case Rachel shows up to ruin Emily's wedding and Ross calls her the wrong name. But somehow new fiancé or spouse ends up the bad person, the crazy, person. Emily ends up accused of being a basket case. On Frasier we have Donny who decides to sue Daphne and they later show being horrible when they run into him when Niles and Daphne are on third wedding to a make their family happy; Mel who tries to make Nile embarrass himself in society, so she is clearly evil. Your not suppose to think how horrible it would be to have your fiancée leave you on the day of your wedding for someone else or three days after you were married. 

Also, its not romantic to see characters we are suppose to root for as couple cheating on their spouse to be with their true love even if that's the star of the show. It wasn't romantic that Carrie and Big had an affair behind his wife and her fiancé's back same with Rory and Dean. Its not romantic its not star-crossed, it makes both characters look crappy. I have never understood why I'm suppose to be routing for couples that involve cheating.      

I agree with your other examples, but I don’t think we were supposed to root for Rory/Dean when they were cheating.

[methodwriter85]

I absolutely hate how TV shows are getting around DNA tests in "Who's your daddy?" or "are they really the person they say are?" by either having DNA tests falsified or people not even asking it because they just know. It's stupid that Rebecca Harper didn't get tested DNA-wise on Brothers and Sisters, and Kevin was made to look like a tight-ass because he was the lone family member that wanted to do it. And then surprise, surprise- she turns out NOT to be a Walker, anyway!

Edited April 10, 2018 by methodwriter85

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

I absolutely hate how TV shows are getting around DNA tests in "Who's your daddy?" or "are they really the person they say are?" by either having DNA tests falsified or people not even asking it because they just know. It's stupid that Rebecca Harper didn't get tested DNA-wise on Brothers and Sisters, and Kevin was made to look like a tight-ass because he was the lone family member that wanted to do. And then surprise, surprise- she turns out NOT to be a Walker, anyway!

Not getting the DNA test annoys me especially with the old girlfriend showing up claiming the kid is his. It almost always ends up not being his kid and no one really chews the ex-girlfriend for it. That's a crappy thing to do. Its completely stupid not to get a DNA test. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

1 hour ago, methodwriter85 said:

I absolutely hate how TV shows are getting around DNA tests in "Who's your daddy?" or "are they really the person they say are?" by either having DNA tests falsified or people not even asking it because they just know. It's stupid that Rebecca Harper didn't get tested DNA-wise on Brothers and Sisters, and Kevin was made to look like a tight-ass because he was the lone family member that wanted to do. And then surprise, surprise- she turns out NOT to be a Walker, anyway!

Or when they only test one side. X Files did it in season 11. And then they still said that the child wasn't Mulder's.

 

Spoiler

And that he's the half brother to it. Eww to the MAX.  :X

[Spartan Girl]

I am so sick of the increasing number of whiny, angry, insecure, entitled, butt sore beta male characters that act alpha just to feel like they're bigger men and take what they want. Some of these examples of Bitch Boys include: Jake from Scandal, Varian from Tangled, Ward on Agents of SHIELD, Lester from Fargo, King Joffrey on GOT...I could go on and on.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Spartan Girl
Forgot Lester from Fargo

[Wiendish Fitch]

8 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I am so sick of the increasing number of whiny, angry insecure, entitled butt sore beta male characters that act alpha just to feel like they're bigger men and take what they want. Some of these examples of Bitch Boys include: Jake from Scandal, Varian from Tangled, Ward on Agents of SHIELD, King Joffrey on GOT...I could go on and on.

And Kevin Pearson from This is Us, Don and Pete from Mad Men, Logan and Dick from Veronica Mars, Bojack Horseman, Perry Cox on Scrubs, pretty much all the men on Joss Whedon shows (especially Firefly)...

Ye gods, this really is a prevalent trope, isn't it?! Mr. Fitch and I have been watching Perry Mason recently, and after seeing cool, collected, no-B.S. Raymond Burr as TV's most famous lawyer, all I can say is: Return to us, non-whiny, non-entitled male characters!

Edited April 13, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[bmasters9]

11 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Ye gods, this really is a prevalent trope, isn't it?! Mr. Fitch and I have been watching Perry Mason recently, and after seeing cool, collected, no-B.S. Raymond Burr as TV's most famous lawyer, all I can say is: Return to us, non-whiny, non-entitled male characters!

And I would include Tony Petrocelli in that group as well!

[magicdog]

May I also include Chuck Connors from The Rifleman?  So much manhood to spare!  Not to mention a great TV  dad!!

[bmasters9]

I'd also like to put in Lt. Frank Ballinger of the Chicago Police in M Squad, and Josh Randall, bounty hunter of Wanted: Dead or Alive-- they didn't take gipp from anyone either, far as I've seen (and I've seen all of both of those series too)!

[Shannon L.]

When a woman, who throughout a series, has never shown any interest in women, suddenly, for whatever reason, finds herself attracted to one, then is suddenly in a romantic, sexual relationship with her.  In my eyes, it just adds fuel for those who think being LGTB is a choice. *

*I'm not gay, so if someone who is thinks that I'm over reacting and can explain why it's no big deal, I'll gladly listen and reconsider my thoughts on it. 

[stillhere1900]

Bossy loud-mouthed Black women who treat their husbands like children.

[proserpina65]

It's not just on tv, but I hate the whole "drop the mic" thing.  The action/statement involved very rarely justifies it.

[slf]

10 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

When a woman, who throughout a series, has never shown any interest in women, suddenly, for whatever reason, finds herself attracted to one, then is suddenly in a romantic, sexual relationship with her.  In my eyes, it just adds fuel for those who think being LGTB is a choice. *

*I'm not gay, so if someone who is thinks that I'm over reacting and can explain why it's no big deal, I'll gladly listen and reconsider my thoughts on it. 

Some lesbians (and bisexual women) don't realize and accept their sexuality until late in life. It's a consequence of being raised in such a homophobic society (Adrienne Rich wrote a very good essay about what she refers to, and what is now widely referred to, as compulsory heterosexuality); many women go through relationship after relationship, even marrying, before coming to terms with being gay. Not unusual.

[Shannon L.]

3 minutes ago, slf said:

Some lesbians (and bisexual women) don't realize and accept their sexuality until late in life. It's a consequence of being raised in such a homophobic society (Adrienne Rich wrote a very good essay about what she refers to, and what is now widely referred to, as compulsory heterosexuality); many women go through relationship after relationship, even marrying, before coming to terms with being gay. Not unusual.

That makes a lot of sense.  Thank you for pointing it out. 

[Irlandesa]

On 4/16/2018 at 8:53 AM, Shannon L. said:

When a woman, who throughout a series, has never shown any interest in women, suddenly, for whatever reason, finds herself attracted to one, then is suddenly in a romantic, sexual relationship with her.  In my eyes, it just adds fuel for those who think being LGTB is a choice. *

*I'm not gay, so if someone who is thinks that I'm over reacting and can explain why it's no big deal, I'll gladly listen and reconsider my thoughts on it. 

The fact that bisexuality* exists is going to give fodder (due to lack of understanding or an unwillingness to understand) for those who think being LGBT is a "choice" but I don't think it means that people should stop being bisexual or that bisexuality should stop being depicted.

@SLF pointed out many reasons why some people don't acknowledge their full sexuality until later in life.  Those reasons are also a reason why many bi women, in relationships with men, don't come out as bi until they're dating another woman.  Society tends to like things to be binary.  A woman, involved with a man, is often assumed to be straight.  A woman, involved with a woman, is often assumed to be a lesbian. And when those women, who are attracted to both men and women, suddenly date the opposite of what they usually dated, it often seems like a sudden switch when it's not. It's just a woman dating someone new.  For that reason, the "surprise" depicted on many shows plays to the real life "out-of-nowhere surprise" feeling some get when someone decides to step outside of the label assumptions that have assigned to them.

Now I don't know why we suddenly have so many shows telling this story.  And I'm not sure any shows telling this story have really explored some of the nuances of being in a same sex relationship, after years of opposite sex relationships, in their rush to have it be no biggie to their friends and family. But I do think the goal is to show that who a person is with at one time doesn't necessarily tell you all there is to know about a person's sexuality.

*So the examples I'm thinking of on the shows I watch feel like stories of bisexuality which is why this post focused on that. I could be wrong because I don't think any show has explicitly said one way or the other--except for Brooklyn 99.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Irlandesa

[Shannon L.]

Thank you, @Irlandesa for another good explanation.  I'll admit that in my life, it was much easier to accept LGT people as being born that way than it was bisexuals (although, I did finally understand that to be the case eventually after talking to some bisexual people that I met over the years).

I think you're right in that it has to do with how it's depicted and I do remember Brooklyn 99 and how easily it was handled on that show.  It seemed much more realistic, or at least less surprising, to me as a viewer.