TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[andromeda331]

I don't know what this trope is called but its annoying. The character meets someone who is better at their job then them. That person he or she has done more then they have, has tons of awards, they are often married to a beautiful model or actress or a actor or billionaire husband, and have kids are geniuses or sports stars or something. This makes the character feel bad about their own life no matter how great it is and jealous. This person can also be a sibling who has it all or an old friend who has it all that their dreading a visit from or to meet up again. Instead of having the character realizing how great his or her life is.  That they have it pretty good or maybe have them think about making some changes or having a new goal or something. Nope instead the character always ends up learning that person's life actually sucks. Their fighting with or separated from their spouse, they barely know their kids, or messes up on the job or goes to far, or their really boring. Well, the character immediately feels better about their own life and themselves.  Why does the other person's life have to suck for them to realize that? Why can't they just realize it on their own?

Edited July 2, 2018 by andromeda331

[Anela]

On 10/5/2016 at 2:06 PM, Constantinople said:

Mostly I just hate the word trope.

 

On 10/5/2016 at 2:13 PM, topanga said:

Ha! Before TWOP and PreviouslyTV, I had no idea what a trope was.

Same, for the both comments.

[Jacqs]

 I'd like to see a child beauty contest on TV that was like the one in my medium sized town - a fun, local thing that no one took seriously, not a JonBenet Ramsey caked in lipstick and eyeshadow and blush monstrosity.

[andromeda331]

The bad guy wants information from the good guy. So the solution aside from kidnapping is to drug him or her for the information. That way they'll have no choice but to answer. Except all it really does is get the person high who then starts acting high. On Psych, Lilly and her dad try to get the cellphone from Gus who is high so he repeats everything they say and the following shoot out in front of him in his apartment doesn't shake his buzz at first either. When something breaks he just picks up a vase and throws it on the floor. On LOST  Sayid is drugged to find out what he knows he names off a bunch of DHARMA sites that haven't been built yet and announces he's from the future causing the bad guys to think they gave him too much drugs. On Person of Interest Harold isn't drugged for information but to buy time so Jordan can put stuff in the microwave to kill him and get away. Harold babbles which confuses Reece and takes Jordan a little longer to realize he's talking to someone else. He waits all excited at the microwave telling Fusco its some kind of flambe and later plays with the siren in the cop car.

Edited July 5, 2018 by andromeda331

[Wiendish Fitch]

On 7/2/2018 at 2:08 AM, andromeda331 said:

I don't know what this trope is called but its annoying. The character meets someone who is better at their job then them. That person he or she has done more then they have, has tons of awards, they are often married to a beautiful model or actress or a actor or billionaire husband, and have kids are geniuses or sports stars or something. This makes the character feel bad about their own life no matter how great it is and jealous. This person can also be a sibling who has it all or an old friend who has it all that their dreading a visit from or to meet up again. Instead of having the character realizing how great his or her life is.  That they have it pretty good or maybe have them think about making some changes or having a new goal or something. Nope instead the character always ends up learning that person's life actually sucks. Their fighting with or separated from their spouse, they barely know their kids, or messes up on the job or goes to far, or their really boring. Well, the character immediately feels better about their own life and themselves.  Why does the other person's life have to suck for them to realize that? Why can't they just realize it on their own?

Agreed. It's also not the most mature or healthy way to view the world. I'm not saying there's no credence to it, but reinforcing emotional pissing contests like that is just lazy writing, IMO. 

[Domenicholas]

I hate it when the main female character (and its almost always female) has a boyfriend at the beginning of the show, but because he's not the main male character we're supposed to root for her when she cheats on her boyfriend and ultimately breaks up him. Double points if the boyfriend is loving and supportive while the male main character treats her like crap. Points to infinity if the loving and supportive boyfriend suddenly turns into an asshole in order to make the main male character look better.

[topanga]

50 minutes ago, Domenicholas said:

I hate it when the main female character (and its almost always female) has a boyfriend at the beginning of the show, but because he's not the main male character we're supposed to root for her when she cheats on her boyfriend and ultimately breaks up him. Double points if the boyfriend is loving and supportive while the male main character treats her like crap. Points to infinity if the loving and supportive boyfriend suddenly turns into an asshole in order to make the main male character look better.

Wow. House of Lies (with Kristen Bell and Don Cheadle) played out this scenario exactly. Scandal had a version of it, too. You nailed it. 

[kathyk24]

I thought of another trope which needs to die the Evil Cripple trope. In this case it's people with mental illness rather than physical illness. Criminal Minds and Law and Order Criminal Intent are the worst offenders.

[ursula]

Another trope - a side/supporting character is obviously not going to be given the same level of detail as the mains. So while the main character, say high school student Alice, has a house, parent(s), family etc and it's shown on screen, we're not going to expect the same extend of investment on the side character's. 

But there's nothing wrong with writing dialogue to imply this and planning a story that assumes this. So if for example, Alice wants her bff, Jane to go somewhere after curfew, Jane can mention that her dad would freak out, and she'd need to figure out how to sneak out. And there can be a Thanksgiving episode where dialogue implies that Jane's having Thanksgiving with them because her parents: a, are servicemen and are deployed, b, don't celebrate it for reasons between political and ridiculous, c, her mom's second cousin came with all the kids that Jane hates so she snuck out of the dinner to come here. Or heck, even the ridiculous - her parents are right there, just in the other room. 

 

It's ridiculous that it needs saying but you don't need to cast a whole football team of actors, or build expensive sets to imply that a character has a rich inner life. You can do the same by just writing good dialogue. And of course, the worst version of this trope is when the writers, because they've neglected to build this inner life - come to the worst conclusions for the character. Oh we've never seen Jane's parents and home because all this while, she's been an orphan living in a homeless shelter and hiding that from her friends. 

(One egregious example is Bonnie Bennett in TVD and it enraged me. We never saw her Dad, but we assumed that he was there - she just liked spending more time with Grams. Then suddenly, they cast him and tell us that all this while, Bonnie really was living by herself in her house because he had basically abandoned her. It didn't  make any difference to the story. He could have just been another oblivious adult like the rest of Mystic Falls.)

Edited July 12, 2018 by ursula

[ganesh]

48 minutes ago, ursula said:

Oh we've never seen Jane's parents and home because all this while, she's been an orphan living in a homeless shelter and hiding that from her friends. 

That's why they do it though, so later on down the road, they can shove something in like that to manufacture drama when they're out of ideas for the main characters. 

[Spartan Girl]

A trope I hate: "you can't get a better girlfriend because you're such a loser and your girlfriend is so awesome". 

It wouldn't bug me so much if it wasn't used to beatify female characters that are in reality just the worst. It was used a lot in the final years of Two and a Half Men with Alan and that heinous bitch Lyndsey. Yeah, Alan was a pathetic loser, but Lyndsey was toxic and verbally/emotionally abusive. A better written show would have told Alan flat-out that he really was better off alone than being with her.

And just to be clear, it doesn't make a difference if the gender roles are reversed in the trope. An example I can think of was on Buffy, when Riley cheated on Buffy and Buffy got scolded by her so-called "friend" Xander for being so willing to let Riley go when he was "guy that came once in a lifetime." PLEASE. He was a needy, insecure jerk that got butt-sore when Buffy didn't lean on him the way he expected her to and conform to his ideal of what a girlfriend should be, and who let his passive-aggressive resentment build up instead of talking to her about about it. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Spartan Girl

[kathyk24]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

A trope I hate: "you can't get a better girlfriend because you're such a loser and your girlfriend is so awesome". 

It wouldn't bug me so much if it wasn't used to beatify female characters that are in reality just the worst. It was used a lot in the final years of Two and a Half Men with Alan and that heinous bitch Lyndsey. Yeah, Alan was a pathetic loser, but Lyndsey was toxic and verbally/emotionally abusive. A better written show would have told Alan flat-out that he really was better off alone than being with her.

And just to be clear, it doesn't make a difference if the gender roles are reversed in the trope. An example I can think of was on Buffy, when Riley cheated on Buffy and Buffy got scolded by her so-called "friend" Xander for being so willing to let Riley go when he was "guy that came once in a lifetime." PLEASE. He was a needy, insecure jerk that got butt-sore when Buffy didn't lean on him the way he expected her to and conform to his ideal of what a girlfriend should be, and who let his passive-aggressive resentment build up instead of talking to her about about it. 

Another trope I hate is the everyone is single trope. This is especially true on procedurals. I've never understood the hatred wives or girlfriends on these shows receive. Kathy Stabler, Haley Hotchner, and both of Mac's love interests come to mind. It's fine to get along with your co-workers but they aren't your family.

[Annber03]

8 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

Another trope I hate is the everyone is single trope. This is especially true on procedurals. I've never understood the hatred wives or girlfriends on these shows receive. Kathy Stabler, Haley Hotchner, and both of Mac's love interests come to mind. It's fine to get along with your co-workers but they aren't your family.

It's usually because some fans ship the person who's in a relationship with one of their co-workers instead, so therefore the wife/girlfriend (or boyfriend/husband, sometimes) gets dumped on instead. Some "Criminal Minds" fans hate Will because they ship JJ with a teammate, some hated Haley (and later, Beth) because they think Hotch should be with someone on the team, etc. 

The part that really disturbs me is when I see some people ranting about the significant others and they're saying, "We want to make sure x character is with the RIGHT person!", as though the character were a real person and the fans were legitimately trying to match them up for real. I mean, I've got my favorite ships on my shows, sure, and if they became canon, hey, awesome :). And reading/writing fic about your favorite ships is cool, too.

But I'm also aware these are fictional characters, and I don't act like I have some kind of some weird ownership over their love lives. Nor would I harass the actors because their characters aren't together, or harass an actor whose character is "in the way" of a ship I like. That's just...creepy. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by Annber03

[kathyk24]

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

It's usually because some fans ship the person who's in a relationship with one of their co-workers instead, so therefore the wife/girlfriend (or boyfriend/husband, sometimes) gets dumped on instead. Some "Criminal Minds" fans hate Will because they ship JJ with a teammate, some hated Haley (and later, Beth) because they think Hotch should be with someone on the team, etc. 

The part that really disturbs me is when I see some people ranting about the significant others and they're saying, "We want to make sure x character is with the RIGHT person!", as though the character were a real person and the fans were legitimately trying to match them up for real. I mean, I've got my favorite ships on my shows, sure, and if they became canon, hey, awesome :). And reading/writing fic about your favorite ships is cool, too.

But I'm also aware these are fictional characters, and I don't act like I have some kind of some weird ownership over their love lives. Nor would I harass the actors because their characters aren't together, or harass an actor whose character is "in the way" of a ship I like. That's just...creepy. 

I think some fans act like the characters are their boyfriends. IF I had a dollar every time someone referred to 'my Reid or my Dean" I'd be rich. I actually like it when male and female characters can be friends without being lovers.

[Annber03]

2 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

I think some fans act like the characters are their boyfriends. IF I had a dollar every time someone referred to 'my Reid or my Dean" I'd be rich. 

Mmhm. I think that's definitely a big part of it, for sure. 

Quote

I actually like it when male and female characters can be friends without being lovers.

Yeah, it's a tough thing for me, because many of the ships I like are ones where the people involved are friends-I do tend to like the "friends to lovers" trope.

But I also fully agree that not every male/female interaction HAS to turn into a romance, and also fully agree that men and women can be just friends, too, and there should be more of that shown on TV. I think that's one reason, though, why I'm not all that bugged over whether or not my favorite pairings become canon. Like I said, awesome if they do, but if they don't, well, I still get to see their lovely friendship on the show, and I enjoy that just as much as I would them being together romantically. Either way, I figure I'm still getting what I want out of the show :). 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well my hate for Haley had nothing to do with wanting Hotch with someone else -it was her own self( her hatred for what Hotch did. It wasn’t just a Job for him and she knew that about him before she married him.

As for Kathy Stabler? I liked her. And I think I was the only one who liked that Elliott and Olivia weren’t an item while partners. That’s one of the things I loved about the show in its early to mid years when I watched it.

Edited July 23, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[andromeda331]

3 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well my hate for Haley had nothing to do with wanting Hotch with someone else m-it was her own self( her hatred for what Hotch did. It wasn’t just a Jon for him and she knew that about him before she married him.

I agree I hate when they have spouses being all upset over their husband or wife's job. That its too dangerous or their away from home too much. Even though its a job their spouse has had for all or most of their marriage. You know what your husband/wife was doing for a living and had been doing it for years. But now its too much or your too angry or you can't handle it? If you didn't think you could handle it why did you remain while he or she went through all that training and worked their way up to their current post? Everyone knows a cop, detective, FBI, NCIS, doctor, whatever these are jobs that require a lot of hours. Its the nature of the job. They are always going to be called away and working on cases or patients for doctors. And again they knew that. It annoyed me when Hotch did it. It annoyed me when Fritz on the Closer (who I really loved except for this point) wanting Brenda in a safer job despite knowing she loved her job and was doing what she always wanted to do. Or on Elementary when Gregson's wife is all snippy "When did I say I was always going to be okay with it" to his remark about when did he ever say he didn't want to be a cop? 

 

Quote

 

As for Kathy Stabler? I liked her. And I think I was the only one who liked that Elliott and Olivia weren’t an item while partners. That’s one of the things I loved about the show in its early to mid years when I watched it.

 

I was always surprised the show didn't go there. It was really nice. Men and women can be partners and not have it turn sexual. Its really nice that friendships can and do happen between the two or they can "love" each other without it being romantic. Holmes and Watson on Elementary have built a really good friendship. 

[Popples]

19 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I agree I hate when they have spouses being all upset over their husband or wife's job. That its too dangerous or their away from home too much. Even though its a job their spouse has had for all or most of their marriage. You know what your husband/wife was doing for a living and had been doing it for years. But now its too much or your too angry or you can't handle it? If you didn't think you could handle it why did you remain while he or she went through all that training and worked their way up to their current post? Everyone knows a cop, detective, FBI, NCIS, doctor, whatever these are jobs that require a lot of hours. Its the nature of the job. They are always going to be called away and working on cases or patients for doctors. And again they knew that.

You just reminded me how much I disliked Deborah Gilder from Born and Bred because of this. It takes place in a small, rural village in 1950's Lancashire. The only two doctors in the village are her husband, Tom, and his father, Arthur. Since Tom was younger, he did most of the work (his father was slacking off a lot, as well). The episode that sent me over the top was at the beginning, they interwove scenes between Tom absolutely hauling ass over fields and gates and Deborah looking annoyed at the empty chair at the kitchen table. It ends up Tom missed breakfast to tend to a man who had a severe, life-threatening injury with some farm equipment. But heaven forbid Tom miss cornflakes and toast.

I contrast her with Win Thursday from Endeavour. Win was fine when her police detective husband, Fred, left their 25th anniversary party to catch a serial killer who was targeting married women. She actually says before he leaves, "If I wanted somebody dull, I would have married someone else." Win gets it.

I'm sure it would be extremely difficult to be married to someone in these professions, but unless they keep their jobs a secret, that's a conscience decision the significant other made going into the relationship.

[SmithW6079]

On 7/23/2018 at 12:24 AM, kathyk24 said:

 I actually like it when male and female characters can be friends without being lovers.

Which is why I hated that Mulder and Scully from The X-Files became romantically involved instead of remaining friends who always had each others' backs.

Edited September 3, 2018 by SmithW6079

[ganesh]

Ugh. Don't get me started. Ruined the show practically. 

[Jacqs]

tomboys (who mysteriously have substantial, if not outright long and flowing, hair) wear things like t-shirts and ripped jeans for most of the show, but in the school prom dance episode, they are all pretty dress and fancy earrings, sparkly necklace, and perfume. Why don't they do what a real life tomboy is likely to do for a school dance and wear a suit and maybe some gel in their hair, which itself wouldn't be as positively flowing as it is with the actresses often playing tomboys on TV.

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, JacquelineAppleton said:

tomboys (who mysteriously have substantial, if not outright long and flowing, hair) wear things like t-shirts and ripped jeans for most of the show, but in the school prom dance episode, they are all pretty dress and fancy earrings, sparkly necklace, and perfume. Why don't they do what a real life tomboy is likely to do for a school dance and wear a suit and maybe some gel in their hair, which itself wouldn't be as positively flowing as it is with the actresses often playing tomboys on TV.

But how else will we see her hidden beauty and well she cleans up??

In all seriousness, this doesn't bother me as much as the idea that tomboys are inherently superior to girly girls. According to most writers, tomboys are unfailingly kind, salt of the earth individuals, and girly girls are always mean, catty popular girls just begging for their humiliating comeuppance. That line of thinking offends me to no end, because

1. Girls are more complicated than that. I met a wide range of girls in high school; I knew cheerleaders who were absolutely lovely, tomboys with mean streaks, and honor students who were loud and proud fashionistas.

2. Liking football doesn't automatically make you a wonderful person. For more on this, I refer you to the "Cool Girl" rant from Gone Girl.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

But how else will we see her hidden beauty and well she cleans up??

In all seriousness, this doesn't bother me as much as the idea that tomboys are inherently superior to girly girls. According to most writers, tomboys are unfailingly kind, salt of the earth individuals, and girly girls are always mean, catty popular girls just begging for their humiliating comeuppance. That line of thinking offends me to no end, because

1. Girls are more complicated than that. I met a wide range of girls in high school; I knew cheerleaders who were absolutely lovely, tomboys with mean streaks, and honor students who were loud and proud fashionistas.

2. Liking football doesn't automatically make you a wonderful person. For more on this, I refer you to the "Cool Girl" rant from Gone Girl.

Or that your only a tomboy because you have brothers and/or was raised by just a father. 

[Chaos Theory]

On 7/22/2018 at 8:55 PM, kathyk24 said:

Another trope I hate is the everyone is single trope. This is especially true on procedurals. I've never understood the hatred wives or girlfriends on these shows receive. Kathy Stabler, Haley Hotchner, and both of Mac's love interests come to mind. It's fine to get along with your co-workers but they aren't your family.

The same with Rita on Dexter.  I think it comes down to the “How dare you make your husband come home to take out the garbage and tuck in the kids when he has more important things to do.”  You can also add Skylar White by the way. 

On 9/2/2018 at 9:11 PM, SmithW6079 said:

Which is why I hated that Mulder and Scully from The X-Files became romantically involved instead of remaining friends who always had each others' backs.

 

I actually liked this pairing and think it was the intention the whole time to pair them.  I am fine when two partners remain friends but if they have the other kind of chemistry as well I am also ok with that.  Like on Castle the romantic chemistry always worked and was probably always intended. That being said I am fine with none of the main characters of Criminal Minds hooking up even though it was originally intended for Reid and JJ to be a couple.  

Edited September 14, 2018 by Chaos Theory

[ganesh]

1 minute ago, Chaos Theory said:

I actually liked this pairing and think it was the intention the whole time to pair them.

Carter said when he was pitching the show that he argued "adamantly against the leads becoming involved" because he didn't want it to be a show about will they or won't they. 

[ABay]

That lie by liar Chris Carter is why I'll never trust another show runner.

[ganesh]

Including the 'I don't need a show bible.' I was laughing at all the people who were so into Lost trying to tie all the chaos into a coherent narrative knowing it would never hold up. 

[Brookside]

TV trope that may have been mentioned before but I could have missed it (if so, sorry):

Police procedurals when several cops go to grab the "perp" at a house and they all go in the front door, guns ablazing, and no-one covers the back door.  Through which the perp escapes.  Do they really want us to think that cops are this stupid?

[Nordly Beaumont]

That's like on Criminal Minds, they burst into a room with guns drawn - look left - look right - yell "CLEAR!" because apparently the unsub wouldn't be hiding behind the couch or a chair or closet. They'd just be right out in the open waiting to be spotted.

[Jacqs]

"Suspect is hatless! I repeat, hatless!"

[bmasters9]

On 9/25/2018 at 4:43 PM, Brookside said:

TV trope that may have been mentioned before but I could have missed it (if so, sorry):

Police procedurals when several cops go to grab the "perp" at a house and they all go in the front door, guns ablazing, and no-one covers the back door.  Through which the perp escapes.  Do they really want us to think that cops are this stupid?

I think I saw something similar to that on a fourth-season episode of The Streets of San Francisco called "Police Buff" (OAD Thursday, Jan. 8, 1976 on ABC); IIRC (and these are spoilers for those who have not seen that episode, or the larger Streets series), the perp (a mentally-unbalanced "police buff" named Eric Doyle [the late, great Bill Bixby]) goes into a hotel called the El Cortez that is under stakeout by Stone and Keller (Keller is undercover as criminal Johnny Roscoe); we think Doyle's going up an elevator to the fifth floor of that hotel to get the undercover Keller/Roscoe, but the story takes an unexpected turn, and Doyle backdoors all the officers and gets into Stone's car and takes him hostage. Quite unexpected if you ask me (at least I thought it was when I saw this one for the first time from CBS' condensed all-in-one Streets DVD release)!

Here is that "Police Buff" episode, where that stakeout and Doyle's taking Stone hostage is contained in the fourth act, starting around the 35:36 mark:

Edited September 30, 2018 by bmasters9
Spoilers

[topanga]

Serial killers are always evil geniuses. With deep-seated psychoses.  Rarely are they just evil jerks. 

[ganesh]

I don't get when the bad guys are running you off the road, you try to speed by them instead of hitting the brakes and banging a 180.

[Raja]

On 10/6/2018 at 1:49 PM, ganesh said:

I don't get when the bad guys are running you off the road, you try to speed by them instead of hitting the brakes and banging a 180.

For normal people, not the super trained in pursuit driving able to take a car to its limits it is human nature.  Especially if they have guns and your instinct is not to let them closer. No matter how much training we get on dealing with dogs there is always the folks who take off running instead of not showing their back as they back up in a defensive posture. 

[merylinkid]

On 10/5/2018 at 4:30 PM, topanga said:

Serial killers are always evil geniuses. With deep-seated psychoses.  Rarely are they just evil jerks. 

Oh yes.    As noted in another thread, they all have these elaborate staged scenes.   Because 1) you want to take all the time  you COULD be getting away to stage a scene with TONS of forensic evidence (this paint used to draw the ancient celtic symbol is only sold in 3 stores in the area)  and 2) nope, nothing to connect all those scenes when you are eventually caught.   Which is only when one of your victim's family members has a special talent that lets them join up with the task force formed to hunt you down despite absolutely no law enforcement experience.

No serial killer just slashes their victims throat and leaves them in the woods.   

[Raja]

The "NSA" agent. The NSA deals with secret codes they are not a do everything agency to use if you don't want a FBI or CIA agent

[Chaos Theory]

On 10/5/2018 at 4:30 PM, topanga said:

Serial killers are always evil geniuses. With deep-seated psychoses.  Rarely are they just evil jerks. 

That’s been going on since Adam West was Batman and probably earlier. He would be dead if the bad guys didnt have deep seated psychoses.  Plus it’s just more fun to watch then your garden variety bad guy.

[DearEvette]

23 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

On 10/5/2018 at 4:30 PM, topanga said:

Serial killers are always evil geniuses. With deep-seated psychoses.  Rarely are they just evil jerks. 

Oh yes.    As noted in another thread, they all have these elaborate staged scenes. 

Not only that, they keep a special keepsake of each victim (again with keeping all the evidence) and taunt the police and send them notes.

[Jacqs]

A gender trope i hate: The Young Girl Regular Character Enters Puberty Episode - well after the actress has started to develop signs such as visible breasts.

I could mention Lizzie McGuire in which Lizzie and Miranda were visibly wearing bras *before* the We Need a Bra Episode, but I'll be retro and mention Samantha Smith's Elizabeth in 1985's Lime Street even though it was a drama. A newspaper report on a speech she gave to a university student audience in early '85 mentioned she had obvious signs of puberty and had started wearing makeup... but her Lime Street character has her first period in an episode!

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

The NSA deals with secret codes they are not a do everything agency to use if you don't want a FBI or CIA agent

This is going way back, but I did like now Invisible Man was a different agency all the time. One week it was department of fish and game, then another time it was BLM. 

Warehouse 13 was actually secret service iirc. 

[Raja]

4 minutes ago, ganesh said:

This is going way back, but I did like now Invisible Man was a different agency all the time. One week it was department of fish and game, then another time it was BLM. 

Warehouse 13 was actually secret service iirc. 

It made sense for Warehouse 13. The US got the warehouse when we only had a Secret Service and not all the alphabet soup of law enforcement agencies 

[AntiBeeSpray]

On 9/14/2018 at 12:57 PM, ganesh said:

Carter said when he was pitching the show that he argued "adamantly against the leads becoming involved" because he didn't want it to be a show about will they or won't they. 

Yep. And the gall... he said that he was FORCED to pair them together. 

Frank Spotnitz said recently that Chris never wanted the characters to grow or evolve. And that goes with his (CC's) line of thinking that he was forced to have them together.

Thing is, at least for the most part, it made the show stronger for it. Heck even Frank knew that. I'm para-phrasing here, but he said this in 2016, that fans liked the show for the characters and not the scary stories (not all fans, just a general thing here). He had a better view of the show than CC ever did.

CC managed to run the show and its characters over. This includes Reyes.

 

On 9/14/2018 at 12:52 PM, Chaos Theory said:

The same with Rita on Dexter.  I think it comes down to the “How dare you make your husband come home to take out the garbage and tuck in the kids when he has more important things to do.”  You can also add Skylar White by the way. 

I actually liked this pairing and think it was the intention the whole time to pair them.  I am fine when two partners remain friends but if they have the other kind of chemistry as well I am also ok with that.  Like on Castle the romantic chemistry always worked and was probably always intended. That being said I am fine with none of the main characters of Criminal Minds hooking up even though it was originally intended for Reid and JJ to be a couple.  

 

Only it wasn't. It came down to D and G's chemistry. That said, I liked it as well. CC is about the only show runner I've ever seen who's squandered chemistry as much as he did.

 

On 9/2/2018 at 9:11 PM, SmithW6079 said:

Which is why I hated that Mulder and Scully from The X-Files became romantically involved instead of remaining friends who always had each others' backs.

 

To a point. CC even knew that it could only go so far. Yet he had to go back to that platonic well and managed to screw things up by wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Meaning having them break up, only be working friends who occasionally screw each other. Worked for s7 when it was new. Didn't in s11 when they had a son together and a history. Ugh.

That said, if I were a new fan, I would probably be a Noromo. Don't need to put up with 1013's, Fox's and CC's bs and game playing.

Edited October 10, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

Thing is, at least for the most part, it made the show stronger for it. Heck even Frank knew that. I'm para-phrasing here, but he said this in 2016, that fans liked the show for the characters and not the scary stories (not all fans, just a general thing here).

I could take it or leave it tbh, but I thought that the fans always liked the show because of Mulder and Scully and not the stories. That was the whole new thing at the time. It's the having both ways that was the problem. 

[AntiBeeSpray]

1 minute ago, ganesh said:

I could take it or leave it tbh, but I thought that the fans always liked the show because of Mulder and Scully and not the stories. That was the whole new thing at the time. It's the having both ways that was the problem. 

Yea it is, but there are fans who liked the stories as well. Agreed. It worked a bit back then, but trying to go back to that bit the show in the butt. I cringed during s10 and 11 at times. There was no chemistry at points between M and S. CC had squeezed the last drop from it and left us with forced crap. That said, I appreciated the moments that didn't feel like that.

[ganesh]

No, I really liked the classic episodes, but they worked because they were grounded by the actors. 

[Chaos Theory]

Honestly I hate Will they/won’t they stories. Do or don’t.  I liked shows like Castle because it was pretty evident that they were heading for a “will they” so I was willing to wait for them to get there.   The X-Files liked to tease but never quite committed to Will they or won’t they.   If they had I would have been fine.  They liked to straddle both sides and that is what pissed me off in the end.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Chaos Theory

[Bort]

17 hours ago, ganesh said:

I could take it or leave it tbh, but I thought that the fans always liked the show because of Mulder and Scully and not the stories. That was the whole new thing at the time. It's the having both ways that was the problem. 

I liked the stories. I've discovered that The X-Files is a show I can't rewatch because the mythology went nowhere. Besides Mulder/Scully waffling, deciding in advance how they wanted the ongoing mytharc to go would've also been a good idea.

This is why I think Fringe was ultimately a much better show. They weren't afraid to pull the trigger on romance between the main characters and they knew in advance what they wanted to do with the mytharc.

[AntiBeeSpray]

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

Honestly I hate Will they/won’t they stories. Do or don’t.  I liked shows like Castle because it was pretty evident that they were heading for a “will they” so I was willing to wait for them to get there.   The X-Files likes to tease but never quite committed to Wii they or won’t they.   If they had I would have been fine.  They they to straddle both sides and that is what pissed me off in the end.

So this. I used to like Castle due to that. But then I didn't... for how things were going BTS. That really bled out into the show itself and made it uncomfortable to watch. It's too bad too since it used to be fun to watch. Exactly. And past a certain point it got to be annoying and insulting. S10 and 11 went back to that bs and honestly I was rolling my eyes at it more than actually enjoying a lot of it.

Choose a side and go with it. Enough's enough. That brings me to another thing -- teasing shippers and treating them like crap. I hated it back in the day and s10 was so bad there that I almost walked away from the show entirely. No one deserves to be bullied and gas lit. How can anyone have any fun watching a show when the people working for it, Fox, CC and so on are acting like pieces of work towards them? That may not be a tv trope, but that along side the will they/won't they bs just made the entire experience a bad joke.

Also add in the fact that the actors didn't seem to have much say in s11 (especially -- minus Glen's episode and his brother's). It was just what CC wanted went and honestly that blew up in flames if nothing else. The show worked in part thanks to what the actors brought to it.

 

10 hours ago, ganesh said:

No, I really liked the classic episodes, but they worked because they were grounded by the actors. 

Fair enough. I did as well. And I liked the ones towards the end. Basically any episode where the characters remotely felt like themselves. It's why I didn't care for who/what they were in s10/11 in CC's eps. They felt like mere shells.

Edited October 11, 2018 by AntiBeeSpray

[topanga]

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

Honestly I hate Will they/won’t they stories. Do or don’t.  I liked shows like Castle because it was pretty evident that they were heading for a “will they” so I was willing to wait for them to get there.   The X-Files likes to tease but never quite committed to Wii they or won’t they.   If they had I would have been fine.  They they to straddle both sides and that is what pissed me off in the end.

I have to admit that I’m a sucker for will they/won’t they stories simply because I like watching actors work together who have great chemistry and banter. And I like a good romance—or the possibility of romance. But I agree with you that most of these stories are not written well. 

The first show I remember with a WTWT plot was Cheers. As a kid I really didn’t know whether Sam and Diane would get together. I had no idea that this was a common TV trope. So it was a fun mystery to me. 

[Domestic Assassin]

4 hours ago, topanga said:

The first show I remember with a WTWT plot was Cheers. As a kid I really didn’t know whether Sam and Diane would get together. I had no idea that this was a common TV trope. So it was a fun mystery to me. 

It wasn't a common TV trope at the time.