TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[Joe Hellandback]

22 hours ago, Jacqs said:

My stalker in high school loved the X-Files. It gave me a hatred for Mulder and Scully.

Hey, hands off Sugar Boobs!

[magicdog]

19 hours ago, Annber03 said:

they're talking about how none of the cast knows who will be under that sheet and were laughing about how much of a "surprise" it will be for that actor when they get their first script for the next season. I get some shows like to keep their actors in the dark about what happens next, but when it comes to deciding whether or not they'll still have a job next season, I'm thinking that's not the best way to handle that issue. 

Sounds like a jerk move to me!  Someone is going to be on the unemployment line and doesn't know it yet;  of course, these jerks laugh about it because the way they find out is funny!!  

As my late father used to say, "About as funny as a rubber crutch!"

[tennisgurl]

I am very much aware that collegiate Greek Life had a lot of serious problems that need dealing with, like hazing, drinking, date rape, etc. but the constant stereotypes that basically every sorority member is at best a vapid "slutty" bimbo, and at worst a bullying evil mean girl, while at best every fraternity man is at best a dumb jock obsessed with just beer and chicks, and at worst, a sociopathic serial rapist, really sucks, and I am pretty sick of it. Not that there are not those people in Greek Life, but there are lots of perfectly nice and intelligent people that just wanted to have fun with friends, make connections, and practice leadership skills and such. Its especially bothersome with sorority women, who it is so often framed as "look at these slutty girls who like sex and drinking in college, not like our main hero girl who is SO down to Earth and will only have sex with her one boyfriend or is SO not a sheeple" or whatever that comes across as very slut shaming. You dont really see much in the way of Greek Life philanthropy or how members need to keep their grades up to stay members or focus on sisterhood or brotherhood events, oh no, its just one big drunken party! Even shows that are almost totally about Greek Life (like Greek) tend to indulge in the lighter parts of the stereotypes. 

It would also certainly be nice to see the Divine Nine (historically black Greek organizations) show up from time to time, or mostly Latino, Asian, LGBTQ, Jewish, etc sororities and fraternities, or even just some chapters that are full of sporty girls or nerdy guys or smart girls or anything that gives them more of a unique vibe, but I dont think they will be showing up any time soon. 

[Mabinogia]

20 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Ugggg this is something else I have really grown to hate. I get that show runners are increasingly worried about spoilers getting out on the internet, but it just comes across as insensitive to their cast. And they always act like its so funny and cool, when really its just unprofessional and annoying. All of these show runners seem convinced that they are "so brave" and "breaking all the rules" when ALL of them are saying the exact same things!

Oh come on, "Surprise, you just lost your job!" is HILARIOUS! There are a lot of showrunners out there who think they are much smarter/funnier/cooler/edgier than they are. All the back patting and high fiving makes me lose all respect for them. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

On 5/16/2019 at 5:39 AM, kiddo82 said:

I'd like to add characters "going gray."  It's not edgy or brave.  It's just done.  I'm not saying you can't have your characters go through some stuff but you eventually have to bring them back or you risk alienating your audience.  This is either accomplished too easily without the character really earning it or it drags on forever. 

I remember reading an old interview with Tim Minear (or was it Joss Whedon?) about Angel in which he said something along the lines of "We got together to decide which of the protagonists would go dark this season". And I was all "How about nobody?". Whedon and co did this kind of storyline so many times that there was nothing novel about it at that point, especially considering how bad many of their "redemption" stories were.

Same with "anyone can die". First of all, it's not true. You can still see the blatant plot armor that many of the protagonists have in these shows. Second, killing a main character is just as likely to destroy a potentially great story than to be a great story. Third, the idea that there won't be any dramatic tension unless you kill of five main characters is nonsense. Not least because death isn't the only adversity a protagonist can possibly face if things go wrong. And because good writing and direction can convince the viewers to fear for the protagonsist's survival without any prior major deaths.

This isn't to say that no important characters should ever die, sometimes it is done really well but it's really not that courageous or better by default than the alternative.

[2727]

3 hours ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

Same with "anyone can die".

On Star Trek Discovery, one of the (very popular) lead characters was ill because all his species die at a specific point. No way to change it. There was a lot of fan reaction while I just kind of sailed past it because of course they're not going to kill the guy!

Apparently I'm stuck in an old school mindset and don't watch any of the shows where that really does happen. 

[ursula]

On 5/12/2019 at 11:50 AM, Blergh said:

It's been some time but one trope I used to hate seeing was watching folks have mortgage burning parties after making that last down payment for the house. And, no, there were times it was NOT a big piece of paper with the word 'MORTGAGE' written in huge letters but it seemed they were burning actual, irreplaceable documents. If a TV character MUST do that- at the very least put the disclaimer 'DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME- or you won't be able to prove you now own it instead of the finance company!'

I can let that one slide. If they have the title in their name, it's public record. They won't need old papers. Plus in these days of electronic everything, it won't be so hard to get copies of financial statement. 

Of course, a hoarder like myself still has the receipt of the first car I ever owned (and sold over a decade ago) so this is very much a "do like I say..." advice. 🙂

[ursula]

On 5/13/2019 at 9:03 PM, tennisgurl said:

I've really grown to hate when shows write in out of nowhere twists, cruel endings, or pointless shock deaths because its so "unexpected" like that makes them such amazing writers or something

Seriously, did no one learn anything from M Night Shyamalan's career?

On 5/14/2019 at 4:43 PM, kiddo82 said:

Cause the thing is, when everything is a shocking twist, nothing is.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

Someone should make this a tee-shirt!

[Domenicholas]

I call this the Once Upon of Time Morality trope.

A bad guy can commit thousands of atrocities, but as soon as they do one thing good, the rest of the characters are supposed to treat them like good guys. Anyone who expresses legitimate grievances about one of the bad guys' numerous crimes is silenced immediately.

A good guy can perform millions of good deeds, but as soon as they do one off color thing (e.g. saving people through pragmatic means, rightfully calling out a villain for a crime they committed), they're treated as though they are as bad as the villains. Hell, sometimes they're treated as worse than the villains.

With OUAT Morality, villains can pay lip service to changing without actually changing, and heroes have to be extreme doormats who bear and grin all the crappy things that happen to them.

[Silver Raven]

1 hour ago, Domenicholas said:

I call this the Once Upon of Time Morality trope.

A bad guy can commit thousands of atrocities, but as soon as they do one thing good, the rest of the characters are supposed to treat them like good guys. Anyone who expresses legitimate grievances about one of the bad guys' numerous crimes is silenced immediately.

A good guy can perform millions of good deeds, but as soon as they do one off color thing (e.g. saving people through pragmatic means, rightfully calling out a villain for a crime they committed), they're treated as though they are as bad as the villains. Hell, sometimes they're treated as worse than the villains.

With OUAT Morality, villains can pay lip service to changing without actually changing, and heroes have to be extreme doormats who bear and grin all the crappy things that happen to them.

Have you been watching Days of Our Lives?  With serial killer Ben, who is now the sexy supercouple love interest?

[andromeda331]

56 minutes ago, Domenicholas said:

I call this the Once Upon of Time Morality trope.

A bad guy can commit thousands of atrocities, but as soon as they do one thing good, the rest of the characters are supposed to treat them like good guys. Anyone who expresses legitimate grievances about one of the bad guys' numerous crimes is silenced immediately.

A good guy can perform millions of good deeds, but as soon as they do one off color thing (e.g. saving people through pragmatic means, rightfully calling out a villain for a crime they committed), they're treated as though they are as bad as the villains. Hell, sometimes they're treated as worse than the villains.

With OUAT Morality, villains can pay lip service to changing without actually changing, and heroes have to be extreme doormats who bear and grin all the crappy things that happen to them.

It fits perfectly. Murder a dangerous psychopath about to become the Dark one? Why you get a dark spot in your heart and treated like you committed the worse crime in the world. Murder millions, destroy who knows how many lives, send children to their deaths, rape someone for 30 years, murdered a groom on his wedding day because your sad, and Cursing everyone? Ah, your just misunderstood, its never, ever your fault, its everyone else's. Someone has a gun to your son's head and keeps threatening to kill him? So you kill that person? Why that's the worse thing in the world you could do! At least until you become a Dark One and end up being treated as the worse Dark One that ever lived because you stole your son's crush's heart to make her friendzone him (even though she didn't seem that into him in the first place) to get his tears to free a man trapped in a tree. That's right freeing a man trapped in a tree is so much worse and evil then the centuries of murders Rumple committed not to mention all his scheming and other crimes. Oh and trying to save her boyfriend. That show was so messed up on so many levels. Watching Regina who raped Graham for 30 years and murdered him when he dumped her (another crime she gets away with scot free) lecturing her half-sister Zelena for raping Regina's boyfriend. 

[andromeda331]

ONCE and LOST have a trope I hate. Everyone jumps or goes a long with a really bad or stupid idea for no reason. Season Four has ONCE characters all join Regina's quest to find the Author and make him give her a happy ending. No one questions why Regina deserves one after everything she's done and zero consequences for it, no one asks Regina what exactly that happy ending is, Regina herself never defines what that means. Is it a man? Money? Something else? What? So they just all jump aboard this plan to that's vague, no plan or idea of what its about. In the end Regina realizes what you expect which she'll make her own happy ending. But no one acts like they just wasted their time and no one even suggested that as possibility.  Regina of course never acts like she wasted any time or made a mistake.

LOST Jack decides to set off the bomb because he thinks that might fix things. No idea why he thinks that, he never tells us, everyone just goes along with it without any idea why their going along with it. They just do. No questions, no talking about it, no reasons. At one point Miles does ask what you would think someone would have asked at any time which is "What if setting off the bomb caused the Incident and everything that happened?" But no one says anything. We get no answers and they continue with the plan to set off the bomb. The bomb gets set off and no it didn't fix anything. 

In the V remake the heroes decide their going to kill Anna and actually come up with a good plan to lure her to where they can kill her. But they decided the person who is going to kill Anna is her own daughter Lisa. That's right. Instead of any of the other members of Fifth Column which includes an FBI counterterrorism agent, former British SAS soldier and mercenary, and former Army sniper (yes he's a priest but still) they chose Lisa. Yet no one sees that as a bad idea. Not one person questions it. Suggests maybe someone other then her own daughter. But are completely shocked when Lisa can't go through with it. Because Anna realizes she's about to kill her and manipulates her.  

Its not that a group of people on a show can't make dumb decisions or band together for a really bad idea but there needs to be reason for it. Whether its a good reason, bad reason, best of a bad situation, or something. A reason why all these people are following a plan they should realize is dumb or doesn't make any sense But watching everyone jumping on the bandwagon or just going along with out giving a reason. 

[Domenicholas]

10 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Have you been watching Days of Our Lives?  With serial killer Ben, who is now the sexy supercouple love interest?

Not recently, but I do remember when EJ went from Sami's rapist to her husband. I think soap operas in general have a real problem with using rape for shock value, never following through with the consequences of the rape itself (except for the every present who's the daddy storylines), and redeeming rapists and putting them together with their rape victims (especially if it's for a child caused by the rape itself. Gross.).

[andromeda331]

9 minutes ago, Domenicholas said:

Not recently, but I do remember when EJ went from Sami's rapist to her husband. I think soap operas in general have a real problem with using rape for shock value, never following through with the consequences of the rape itself (except for the every present who's the daddy storylines), and redeeming rapists and putting them together with their rape victims (especially if it's for a child caused by the rape itself. Gross.).

Oh they definitely do. They want the rape for exactly that the shock value. But then want to turn around and make the rapist a good guy. They want to keep him around and he usually stays, gets great storylines and becomes popular. Yes its great to see a character turn around like that but not a rapist. I'm still disgusted with One Life To Live for thinking it was a great idea to make poor Marty testify for her rapist Todd and talk about what a great guy he now was. And if that wasn't disgusting enough her kid married his kid so now he's part of her family. No, that's not a great storyline its horrifying and sickening to make a rape victim testify for her rapist and have her say how much he's changed. Its horrifying and sickening to make him part of her family. Days of Our Lives made that even worse by having the rape victim fall in love and marry her rapist. That's not romantic. That's sick. Why are these even storylines? How are these even being proposed in the writing sessions let alone greenlight into real stories? They can come up with enough bad guys who end up changing without making them rapists. 

[Silver Raven]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Days of Our Lives made that even worse by having the rape victim fall in love and marry her rapist.

The most egregious example of that is General Hospital, with Luke and Laura.

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

The most egregious example of that is General Hospital, with Luke and Laura.

I don't know how I forgot that one. Yes, that one was the worse. After his rape of Laura, they fell in love and got married which was the highest watched soap episode ever. 

[biakbiak]

10 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know how I forgot that one. Yes, that one was the worse. After his rape of Laura, they fell in love and got married which was the highest watched soap episode ever. 

And then later they even changed that he was never really that in love with her and she stifled his true nature. 

[Joe Hellandback]

27 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know how I forgot that one. Yes, that one was the worse. After his rape of Laura, they fell in love and got married which was the highest watched soap episode ever. 

16. People can simply walk into police stations at will, even the sex crimes unit

17. All rape victims will be young attractive white girls

18. People can either survive repeated blows to the head with no effect or be knocked out by a single blow as required. 

19. Unlikeable characters must always be proven wrong, you can never be unsympathetic yet correct. 

20. Any man involved in porn, prostitution or any kind of sex work where he employs women will always be unsympathetic (although we occasionally get a likeable female madam).

21. Heroes will always sustain numerous non-fatal wounds and completely recover (Robot Chicken fabulously satirised this with Dick Tracy eventually dying of lead poisoning after being shot in the shoulder so many times).

22.  Police officers will always tell suspects not to leave town and no one ever does. 

23. When gay people come out their straight spouse will always be happy for them rather than furious to have been deceived and wasted years of their life in the relationship.

24. Lawyers will always introduce surprise evidence into the courtroom despite the legal requirement for them to disclose it to the defence beforehand.  

25. People will always be able to work undercover despite often appearing in court and having their picture in the newspaper etc (worst offender for this was The Six Million Dollar Man where no one ever recognised Steve Austin despite him being an astronaut who walked on the moon).

26. The leader of the villains will always have a glamourous 'hit chick' girlfriend who will wear lots of black leather.

27. All police officers will have lots of rest days saved up as they love their work so much they never take holidays. 

28. All criminals will be armed with enough firepower to take on an army even if they are just robbing the local store.

29. Heroes will have often 'just quit' smoking or drinking so we know they are cool but have still done the socially responsible thing. 

30.  Criminals are always on the verge of retirement when they are lured back in for 'one last job' (doing the responsible thing but still getting to perform cool crime). Retired secret agents are similarly recruited back in as they are the only people who can do the job. 

[Joe Hellandback]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I don't know how I forgot that one. Yes, that one was the worse. After his rape of Laura, they fell in love and got married which was the highest watched soap episode ever. 

Poldark springs to mind as does Buffy/Spike. 

[andromeda331]

One of the weirdest ones comes from Bewitched. I know the show was set in the 60s and its one of the early episodes. Darren's client keeps hitting on Samantha at a party at their house. It gets to the point where he almost rapes her but she stops him by turning him into a dog. Now had she not done that. She would have been raped. Samantha even says so when she tells Darren why she turned his client into a dog. Now, you'd expect Darren to be out rage at the client. Nope, he's furious at Samantha for turning him into a dog and more worried about the client. Even after she points out that almost attacked her. He doesn't believe her and Samantha throws him out of the house. As she should. Later he does punch the client after seeing him once again hitting on Samantha trying to nuzzle her nose. Then they act like that punch is enough after Darren didn't believe her. Its really a little too late. After being an asshole the whole time. Samantha tells him he didn't have to hit the man that hard. At the man who would have assaulted her in her own home if she hadn't had powers and just tried to nuzzle her ear. He clearly still hasn't learned a thing. They never once press charges against the client so he's free to get drunk and go try again. Who knows how many times he's done that in the past. I know its was the 60s but what was the point of that? Couldn't they have ended it with him going to jail? What about Darren not believing her? Did Endora not realize her daughter was almost attacked? You'd think she'd straight up kill the client. Or just not do the episode all together. 

[Jacqs]

I think you answered your own question with "it was the sixties". Yeoman Rand tells Good Captain Kirk (not knowing there are two Kirks running around) that "I didn't want to get you into trouble! I wouldn't have even mentioned it!" about NEARLY BEING RAPED by Evil Kirk! @andromeda331

Edited May 20, 2019 by Jacqs

[Homily]

13 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I know its was the 60s but what was the point of that? Couldn't they have ended it with him going to jail? What about Darren not believing her? 

This is the trope that gets me irritated in TV shows, books and movies. Not believing the person you presumably love and care about when they tell you something.  Of course this is the staple of most romcoms and Harlequins, "the misunderstanding" , and I can accept that to some extent when it's something that possibly could be open to misinterpretation.  But not in potential rape kinds of situations!

[cpcathy]

I always thought OG Darren was HUGE asshole. Darren #2 at least seemed nicer.

[Jacqs]

"Darren #2 at least seemed nicer"

He was played by a gay actor, which probably helped.

[Jaded]

21 hours ago, biakbiak said:

And then later they even changed that he was never really that in love with her and she stifled his true nature. 

All because the actor didn't like Genie Francis. 

[Spartan Girl]

The lead character having to kill their girlfriend because they turn evil. Arguably it's just as trite when it's a male love interest that gets killed, but when it's a female character that dies it's all about the manpain.

I bet you all know what show inspired this post.

[ganesh]

"Dainty manpain" as we referred to Victor on Penny Dreadful. 

[magicdog]

Quote

23. When gay people come out their straight spouse will always be happy for them rather than furious to have been deceived and wasted years of their life in the relationship.

I only saw an exception to this once - on the series, "911", when Athena Grant (Angela Bassett) lets her husband have it when he decides to effectively abandon his family for a gay lover.  I remember the characters arguing over it (essentially he was telling her she sort of knew what he was but wanted a husband and children) and I especially loved how she chewed him out when he wanted to bring his latest boyfriend (whom he barely knew) to spend holidays with the children like everything was no big deal.  Kind of like if he had left her for another woman, and thinking it wouldn't be a big deal to his ex or the kids.  

[Bastet]

Grace and Frankie - which opened with two men leaving their wives for each other because they've been having an affair for eons and are now ready to come out - addressed that in its third episode, which I appreciated.  The two families had been close; the wives only put up with each other, but the husbands were law firm partners and all the kids were varying degrees of friends.  Shortly after the big announcement, the guys had all the (adult) kids over for dinner - in the house Robert and Grace had lived in, that now Robert and Sol were living in - and the "kids" discussed, among themselves and then in a great scene at the table, that if the dads had been fucking around with women for 20 years before leaving their moms, there would be bloodshed, not chicken and cake, but it's like they're not allowed to be angry about it because they're gay.

[Shannon L.]

I have a family member who went through the whole scenario of having a wife and children, then leaving because he was gay.  First and foremost, they both have said that they had a good marriage and an enjoyable sex life, but his heart just wasn't in it like a loving husband's should be.  The children were upset--especially his oldest son--as was his wife at first, but after time and some therapy, they all accepted their new life and he and his ex-wife stayed friends until he died.  While I do think there would be different degrees of hurt and anger for each family, I can't imagine a tv-like scenario where everyone is ok with it right off the bat.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Shannon L.

[ratgirlagogo]

22 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

bet you all know what show inspired this post.

No, as it happens.  Spoiler me.

[DearEvette]

36 minutes ago, ratgirlagogo said:

No, as it happens.  Spoiler me.

I'll take

Spoiler

Game Of Thrones

for 100 Alex.

[Dr.OO7]

On 5/21/2019 at 3:25 PM, Bastet said:

Grace and Frankie - which opened with two men leaving their wives for each other because they've been having an affair for eons and are now ready to come out - addressed that in its third episode, which I appreciated.  The two families had been close; the wives only put up with each other, but the husbands were law firm partners and all the kids were varying degrees of friends.  Shortly after the big announcement, the guys had all the (adult) kids over for dinner - in the house Robert and Grace had lived in, that now Robert and Sol were living in - and the "kids" discussed, among themselves and then in a great scene at the table, that if the dads had been fucking around with women for 20 years before leaving their moms, there would be bloodshed, not chicken and cake, but it's like they're not allowed to be angry about it because they're gay.

Friends cited this also, when everyone expected Ross to go to his ex-wife's wedding and he angrily declared that no one would expect that if she were marrying another man.

Speaking of Friends, Friends Rent Control.

"I work one day a week and make $5/hour, but my place is nicer than what someone with a 6-figure salary could afford!"

To be fair, I don't really hate it, but it really annoys me.

[MaryMitch]

2 hours ago, Camille said:

Speaking of Friends, Friends Rent Control.

"I work one day a week and make $5/hour, but my place is nicer than what someone with a 6-figure salary could afford!"

To be fair, I don't really hate it, but it really annoys me.

Along those lines - people who are struggling actors/waiters/whatev and have really nice furniture, kitchen stuff, and nick-knacks. I don't mind so much when these people wear $200 t-shirts, because I can't really tell, but set decorators should take a hint from "All In The Family" or "Roseanne" for what a real struggling family's house/apartment looks like.

[Homily]

2 hours ago, Camille said:

Speaking of Friends, Friends Rent Control.

"I work one day a week and make $5/hour, but my place is nicer than what someone with a 6-figure salary could afford!"

Not even rent, owning.  Shows like Married With Children that have a not particularly successful shoe salesman (and it's a one income family at that) living next door to a banker.  Mmmkay.  

[janie jones]

I liked how American Housewife did an episode on how they could afford the rent on a house they shouldn't be able to afford the rent for.

[Joe Hellandback]

31. If you can fly one plane, you can fly them all. 

[Melina22]

20 minutes ago, Joe Hellandback said:

. If you can fly one plane, you can fly them all. 

Even if they were previously operated by aliens or Cylons. 

[Dr.OO7]

I also dislike the One Hour Work Week trope, which occurs anytime something isn't a workplace sitcom or drama.

Unless someone's filthy rich, there's no way we should always be seeing them at home/shopping/at lunch/anywhere but work.

I appreciated that Friends of all shows acknowledged this when Joey of all people told the rest of the group that their bosses hated them because they were hanging out in a coffee shop at 1130 on a Wednesday.

[Moose135]

19 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

31. If you can fly one plane, you can fly them all. 

It's just like riding a bike, only harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.

Although honestly, they are all pretty much the same - push forward, the houses get bigger, pull back, the houses get smaller, unless you keep pulling back, then the houses get bigger again...

[Raja]

21 minutes ago, Moose135 said:

It's just like riding a bike, only harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.

Although honestly, they are all pretty much the same - push forward, the houses get bigger, pull back, the houses get smaller, unless you keep pulling back, then the houses get bigger again...

Well if it were limited to fixed wing aircraft.  The TV top gun also flies helicopters

[Dr.OO7]

20 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

31. If you can fly one plane, you can fly them all. 

The Universal Drivers License. 

I always found it ridiculous that James Bond could pilot every type of vehicle he got into--car, truck, plane, boat, helicopter.

OO agents must go through some hellish training.

[DrSpaceman]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 2:42 PM, MaryMitch said:

Along those lines - people who are struggling actors/waiters/whatev and have really nice furniture, kitchen stuff, and nick-knacks. I don't mind so much when these people wear $200 t-shirts, because I can't really tell, but set decorators should take a hint from "All In The Family" or "Roseanne" for what a real struggling family's house/apartment looks like.

Or The Middle.  They were always pretty accurate as well

They probably took it to the other extreme with how "poor" they were, but I still find it more realistic than most TV shows in terms of money

Modern Family is the worst and that has been true throughout the show, even in its earlier, better years.  I know Jay is rich, he has the closet company.  But The Pritchetts and Dunphys live like they are as rich as Jay.  And yes Claire took over for Jay at the company, but even before that, money was never any object for any of these families to be denied anything. 

Its an interesting Red state/Blue state sort of contrast in the two shows.  While Modern Family has always been very progressive in terms of Cam and Mitch as a married gay couple, the show and those families are completely out of touch financially with the rest of the country. 

Even when shows TRY to make money an issue, they often fail and end up looking completely stupid.  The Big Bang Theory, for example.  Howard and Bernadette.  They both have good jobs, two income family, they inherited a freaking house from his mom.  They are older and have had years to save money.  Yet they did a story or an arc, forget which, where Howard was all worried about money from them having a kid.  I mean I get it, its expensive to have kids But they are FAR better off then 98% of couples with their situation and they made it seem like they were destitute and barely scraping by.   

Edited May 28, 2019 by DrSpaceman

[Browncoat]

4 hours ago, DrSpaceman said:

They are older and have had years to save money. 

Just because you have had years to save money doesn't actually mean you've saved any money.

[ratgirlagogo]

19 hours ago, DrSpaceman said:

Even when shows TRY to make money an issue, they often fail and end up looking completely stupid.  The Big Bang Theory, for example.  Howard and Bernadette.  They both have good jobs, two income family, they inherited a freaking house from his mom.  They are older and have had years to save money.  Yet they did a story or an arc, forget which, where Howard was all worried about money from them having a kid.  I mean I get it, its expensive to have kids But they are FAR better off then 98% of couples with their situation and they made it seem like they were destitute and barely scraping by

15 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Just because you have had years to save money doesn't actually mean you've saved any money.

Yes, but in their case they have worked for years for an extremely prestigious school that realistically would help them out with housing.

My own Big Bang peeve is that having known more than a few female students and teachers at Cal Tech and MIT - in real life Farah and Bernadette would have been just as culturally nerdy as the guys.  They would have read comics and listened to Weird Al, etc.

[Blergh]

On 5/28/2019 at 8:47 AM, DrSpaceman said:

Or The Middle.  They were always pretty accurate as well

They probably took it to the other extreme with how "poor" they were, but I still find it more realistic than most TV shows in terms of money

Modern Family is the worst and that has been true throughout the show, even in its earlier, better years.  I know Jay is rich, he has the closet company.  But The Pritchetts and Dunphys live like they are as rich as Jay.  And yes Claire took over for Jay at the company, but even before that, money was never any object for any of these families to be denied anything. 

Its an interesting Red state/Blue state sort of contrast in the two shows.  While Modern Family has always been very progressive in terms of Cam and Mitch as a married gay couple, the show and those families are completely out of touch financially with the rest of the country. 

Even when shows TRY to make money an issue, they often fail and end up looking completely stupid.  The Big Bang Theory, for example.  Howard and Bernadette.  They both have good jobs, two income family, they inherited a freaking house from his mom.  They are older and have had years to save money.  Yet they did a story or an arc, forget which, where Howard was all worried about money from them having a kid.  I mean I get it, its expensive to have kids But they are FAR better off then 98% of couples with their situation and they made it seem like they were destitute and barely scraping by.   

Very good post!

I also hated Parenthood would constantly have plots all the adult family members supposedly on the verge of financial ruin-   yet magically be able to keep living like Croesus.  For example when Adam's recording business venture with Crosby was about to tank but  when Adam's daughter Haddie wanted to go to Cornell. Rather than just tell her she would to have to accept reality and try to find a college they could AFFORD, they told her they'd 'make it work' so they wouldn't have to live with her disappointment.  I mean, if a show is to have plots with characters dealing with the proverbial wolf at the door, then they should depict CONSEQUENCES of what the individual characters must endure to deal with that problem rather than just mope about it but STILL keep indulging in impractical dreams and a well-heeled lifestyle. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by Blergh
cases

[DarkRaichu]

On 5/26/2019 at 7:44 PM, Melina22 said:

Even if they were previously operated by aliens or Cylons. 

Flying them is 1 thing, doing all sorts of advanced flying maneuvers just after 2 minutes of using alien tech is quite another 

[DrSpaceman]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

Very good post!

I also hated Parenthood would constantly have plots all the adult family members supposedly on the verge of financial ruin-   yet magically be able to keep living like Croesus.  For example when Adam's recording business venture with Crosby was about to tank but  when Adam's daughter Haddie wanted to go to Cornell. Rather than just tell her she would to have to accept reality and try to find a college they could AFFORD, they told her they'd 'make it work' so they wouldn't have to live with her disappointment.  I mean, if a show is to have plots with characters dealing with the proverbial wolf at the door, then they should depict CONSEQUENCES of what the individual characters must endure to deal with that problem rather than just mope about it but STILL keep indulging in impractical dreams and a well-heeled lifestyle. 

They often do the same thing with women after they give birth and they are trying to decide whether to go back to work or stay home with the kids.  The finances are never a consideration.  Its always the same trite "we will make it work" if she wants to stay home. 

I've never seen Parenthood, but it also reminds me of the movie This is 40.  Two parents living in likely a million dollar plus home running two terribly unsuccessful business, one being stolen from and the other trying to sell a musician that has never been commercially successful.  And one of them is giving money to his dad every month.  I don't see how they have any money or have lasted as long as they did. 

[Bort]

20 minutes ago, DrSpaceman said:

They often do the same thing with women after they give birth and they are trying to decide whether to go back to work or stay home with the kids.  The finances are never a consideration.  Its always the same trite "we will make it work" if she wants to stay home. 

Depends on what the mom's income is. If she goes back to work, they have to pay for childcare and a lot of times it's either a wash, or they lose money going back to work.

[magicdog]

On 5/27/2019 at 1:41 PM, Camille said:

I always found it ridiculous that James Bond could pilot every type of vehicle he got into--car, truck, plane, boat, helicopter

My dad was in the military after HS and used to tell me he could drive anything.  It didn't matter what kind of vehicle it was;  stick or automatic (or crank!), a jeep, or a tank!  The military does have its advantages in those cases.

Bond was a member of the Royal Navy so he could have learned many of the skills he uses.  Being a spy I would think they would have many field agents be able to operate a variety of vehicles.