Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
galax-arena

TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I start with the caveat that I don't dismiss any tropes outright, since I believe there are great stories that can be written using any of them. It just takes a great author to know how to use them right.

That said, if there's a few that I'm tired of:

  • Henpecked Husband- I get that writers probably want to poke fun at their nagging wives. Fine. Problem is, too many of them go overboard and I begin to wonder why the man fell in love with the woman in the first place. There's nagging and then there's 

I utterly hate the nagging wife trope because 9 times out of 10 the wife is not being a nag she is just tired of her husbands juvenile antics and or laziness.  Sorry fellas, it's not nagging when your wife reminds you to pick up your dirty clothes or take out the trash.   Your wife would be a lot nicer if you pulled your own weight around the house instead of acting like another child.  Looking at you Ray Barone. 

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

10 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

"Identity" plots- A white, likely Christian, heterosexual male character can have "normal" struggles and challenges. Everyone else has to struggle with their identity- a person of colour must fight racism, a female character must fight sexism, a gay or lesbian character must fight homophobia, etc. They're never allowed to have different struggles, because they're too closely identified by their, well, identity. I think things are getting better in this regard, I still feel we need more progress here.

Token diversity- I'm not against diverse casts at all- more diversity is needed, I think. No, the issue I have is when you get a studio that seems to go out of its way to make sure they've got an ensemble from every "identifiable group" you can think of, or "reverse whitewash" or "reverse gender flip" just so they can appear "progressive". Newsflash, guys- you're not fooling anyone with how "woke" you think you appear.

White Male Lead- It's getting better in this regard, but I still think we have too many execs who think that unless a character is specifically described to be anything but a white, heterosexual, likely Christian male, the character must be cast with a white, heterosexual, likely Christian male. Executives could learn from Geena Davis, who once said that we could fix our diversity problem if, say, "when you have a script that calls for the two main characters to be detectives, just cast them as women so the other characters can act like it's normal and don't think twice about having women as cops". I'm paraphrasing but I know I've seen some rendition of that quote and I believe it- unless diversity is "normalized", it's not going to take root.

These are all an interconnected problem, in that a lot of the diversity out there is pretty shallow, the token level like you say.  I think of Superstore and Telenovela.  They premiered at the same time, each with Latina leads (America Ferrera and Eva Longoria) but while Superstore had more diversity, it still had a while male lead while Telenovela had a diverse Latin cast.  Superstore took place in a typically American environment of a big box store (but lacked the bite any retail comedy should have) Telenovela was set on a Spanish telenovela, and yet see which one is still on the air.

10 hours ago, Danielg342 said:
  • "Joker"-type criminals- I'm not talking about The Joker himself, because he's a great character. No, it's all his imitators, the cackling, pure evil monsters whose only motivation for committing evil is "just to be evil". Yawn. It's been done way too much, and, not only are those imitators flat and boring, they forget that The Joker himself was well-rounded character. If you're going to write a criminal, write one that has believable motivations or at least has a logic behind what they're doing- evil "for the sake of evil" is just flat out boring.
  • The Villain Sue- This is popular on police procedurals, but you can find them almost anywhere. It seems more often than not, when Hollywood seeks to create an "ultimate Big Bad", they wind up with some character that is unbelievably smart, unbelievably lucky and has unbelievable abilities, just so the villain can get away and frustrate the poor characters tasked to chase them.

I remember a show a few years ago where the villains were more developed and interesting than the regulars.  Especially since most serial killers do not have the psychology to continually outwit the police  for extended periods (they want the glory and are more likely to get caught).  The Joker is an interesting case because he's chaos personified as a foil to Batman and his quest for order, but that's a whole other discussion.

10 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Alternate Timelines always being worse than the original one- Again, I know there are exceptions, but more often than not, if you have characters who go back in time, change something there and then try to go back to their original spot in their own time, they'll find the "changed" timeline results in a world and a universe they don't like, forcing them to go back in time and reverse their changes so they can go back to the universe they know and like.

I remember an episode of that show Journeyman years ago where he accidentally left his digital camera in 1985 which resulted in a much more advanced future where things were better, but it ended up erasing his son from existence, and he had a daughter instead that he didn't know.  He eventually went back and changed it, but it was after a lot of soul searching and a few fights with his wife.  I think this trope still comes around because writers are afraid of blowing up the premise of their show and changing too much.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I utterly hate the nagging wife trope because 9 times out of 10 the wife is not being a nag she is just tired of her husbands juvenile antics and or laziness.

Blame the Honeymooners. This is literally every family sitcom for over a half century.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

WEARING A SUIT TO A DANCE IS "FEMINIST"

NAMING YOUR NEW BABY DAUGHTER SOMETHING MASCULINE IS "FEMINIST"

Both of those things are pretty darn anti-feminist!

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Lugal said:

The Joker is an interesting case because he's chaos personified as a foil to Batman and his quest for order, but that's a whole other discussion.

I don't mind the Joker and his ilk because they are comic book characters. Comic books are not meant to be terribly realistic. People fly! But I think that procedural cop shows should not have Joker like villains. They are supposed to be more rooted in reality and I don't think in reality criminals who get caught are quite as clever and quick witted as TV would make us seem. 

It leads to another trope, the lead cop arch-nemesis. Now, I don't know any cops that well, but I can't imagine they all have this super intelligent Moriarty style nemesis. It's bad enough when the killer/criminal is some super genius, it is sooooo much worse when they have some kind of personal rivalry with some cop, who is also a super genius. Realistic police procedural should not feel like superhero comics. That's what we have comic book shows for. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That's probably the trope there, the "finally met their match" trope. It isn't just detective shows where the genius dick meets their criminal mental soulmate. It's actually worse in soaps/romances. The playboy who never plans to settle down or the career woman who never wants kids, who always thinks about themselves until they "meet their match", the person who challenges everything they thought they knew about themselves and about life and they finally settle down because "the one" is just so perfect that they can give our hero/heroine a complete personality makeover in a matter of weeks/months.

And the extension of that: City folk are wrong about everything and they just haven't gone to the right small town to see how life really should be. 

One of the stories I always wanted to write is a detective who actually falls in love with a criminal mastermind. There aren't too many love stories I like writing because I find many of them wind up being stupid, but this kind of love story could be interesting. Just exploring the dynamic alone of dealing with someone who lives "the right way" having to come to terms with someone who lives "the wrong way" would be intriguing for me, just because I don't believe you can get a contrast in characters deeper than that. It's also largely unexplored territory in "storyland".

Also, as a former small towner myself, I second the annoyance of the "small towns are better" trope. My life has gotten drastically better since I moved to the city, and that's because the city gives you a better opportunity to "find your niche" and because city folk tend to be more open-minded than small towners. In my experience, unless you "fit in" with the culture of the small town the small town isn't a great place.

4 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

It's not a trope, but it kind of fits here:  I'm tired of the extreme sex and violence in streaming and cable tv shows.  I don't mind it on occasion, but a lot of it isn't necessary.

I'm tired of it too. I get that broadcast network rules can be restrictive and I've lost count how many times I've watched a network show and thought "reality wouldn't be this sanitized", but the upshot is that you get so many producers of non-network shows who pile on the sex and the violence simply because "they can". Like everything, there's a time and a place for sex and/or violence in the story- otherwise, it just makes the writers come across as lazy.

What's worse about this "meta trope" about violence and sex on non-network shows is that TV critics tend to be so over-the-top in their praise not just for the shows but also for the amount of violence and sex that are in those shows. I don't remember which show it was but I recall searching for it on Google- because it was getting buzz- and most of the Google search results were critics praising the show for the amount of penises they saw on screen. Newsflash, critics- a show isn't good because there are, um, actual dicks on screen. I mean, I don't know about everyone else but I sure don't base my viewing habits on the number of dicks I see on screen. I base it on how good the show's content is, period.

2 hours ago, DearEvette said:

So funny since I just read an article that talks about how tv and fiction really like to play up the idea of the Moriarty type killer, who is super smart and super calculated and plays the police like chess pieces, but in fact most criminals -- especially those who are high profile habitual  criminals like spree or serial killers -- are not caught because they are smart, but because of the mishandling or downright incompetence in the investigation by the police.

There's a strange irony about Moriarty. As I understand, in the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Moriarty was just another of Sherlock's adversaries, he was never the "Big Bad"- like many other things about Sherlock, that only came later, when other adaptations of Sherlock cast Moriarty as Sherlock's Big Bad.

To be fair, I don't think "the Moriarty" is a bad concept- I can think of Arc Villains that I've enjoyed, and movies that were successful with the concept- and it's not entirely unrealistic. Ted Bundy, the best real-life archetype for "the Moriarty", did a lot of things to outsmart the police (including committing his crimes in different areas, because he knew police at the time never shared intelligence with other jurisdictions).

The problem is with the execution- you have too many Hollywood execs who get enamoured by the idea but never realize you have to properly think it through. Creators never seem to understand that you have to know who their Big Bad is and everything about their character pretty much right from the outset, even if you don't reveal who the Big Bad is until the end. At least this way you can have a character who's believable, as well as a chase and evidence collection that can be similarly believable. I'd probably go so far as suggest that a series involving a Big Bad should be created around the Big Bad, with all the other characters being "supporting" characters. I'm a strong believer that the best antagonists are the antithesis of the protagonists- good where the protagonists are weak- so developing the Big Bad first allows you to figure out how to make the other characters complimentary to it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Homicide:LOTS has a great episode where Kay Howard goes back to the small Chesapeake Bay town she grew up in and finds herself drawn into a murder investigation because of her Big City expertise. The town is not a bad place to be for a lot of people even if the local seafood trade has been on a long slow slide, but it's also pretty clear why Kay left when she could and why she wouldn't go back for good during her working years.

Damn, that show did nuance so well. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

One of the stories I always wanted to write is a detective who actually falls in love with a criminal mastermind. There aren't too many love stories I like writing because I find many of them wind up being stupid, but this kind of love story could be interesting. Just exploring the dynamic alone of dealing with someone who lives "the right way" having to come to terms with someone who lives "the wrong way" would be intriguing for me, just because I don't believe you can get a contrast in characters deeper than that. It's also largely unexplored territory in "storyland".

I am about to be really old but one of my favorite in my head pairings as a kid was Batman and Catwoman, from the 60s Adam West TV show, not all the angsty Batman movies that followed. I loved how Batman and Catwoman were clearly attracted to each other, and a few times she even kind of sort of "tried" to be good because then they could make a go of it, but she never could tame her deviant nature. It was such a great tragic romance idea that really stuck with me. 

I know that most people love a "love triumphs over all" story where true love (usually some pure as driven snow Mary Sue) can tame the savage heart (usually some "bad boy" hunk who screws around, but it's okay because he's "damaged") but I really liked the push pull of a love doomed from the start because neither person could or would change their ways. 

It is the ultimate opposites attract...but then what? Sure opposites attract, but if it isn't a complementary kind of opposite, like one shy and one outgoing so that the outgoing one helps they shy one in social situations, if it is more, one is a law enforcement agent and the other likes to kill people for fun and excitement, how do you get over that?

And now you've got me all misty for some old Batman reruns (the ones with Catwoman/Julie Newmar, obviously lol)

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

As I understand, in the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Moriarty was just another of Sherlock's adversaries, he was never the "Big Bad"- like many other things about Sherlock, that only came later, when other adaptations of Sherlock cast Moriarty as Sherlock's Big Bad.

Sort of. He's one of the few 'named' villains in the books, and Holmes clearly states he runs a vast criminal organization. So there's some stories where he's mentioned having influence on events - whether a particular person in the current story is just someone in the organization, etc. They don't really square off mano a mano though. He is the central figure in Holmes' 'death'. He's referred to as the "Napoleon of crime" by Holmes himself. So it's fair that he's shown as a big nemesis in tv/movie adaptations.

One thing I liked was that the BBC series included Charles Augustus Milverton as one of the big bads. He's rarely referred to, but he was also a powerful villain.

Edited by DoctorAtomic
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Sort of. He's one of the few 'named' villains in the books, and Holmes clearly states he runs a vast criminal organization. So there's some stories where he's mentioned having influence on events - whether a particular person in the current story is just someone in the organization, etc. They don't really square off mano a mano though. He is the central figure in Holmes' 'death'. He's referred to as the "Napoleon of crime" by Holmes himself. So it's fair that he's shown as a big nemesis in tv/movie adaptations.

Ah OK. Thanks for clarifying. So he was a big deal- just not the biggest deal. Or rather, Holmes views him as his chief enemy, like The Joker to Batman.

 

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I am about to be really old but one of my favorite in my head pairings as a kid was Batman and Catwoman, from the 60s Adam West TV show, not all the angsty Batman movies that followed. I loved how Batman and Catwoman were clearly attracted to each other, and a few times she even kind of sort of "tried" to be good because then they could make a go of it, but she never could tame her deviant nature. It was such a great tragic romance idea that really stuck with me. 

I know that most people love a "love triumphs over all" story where true love (usually some pure as driven snow Mary Sue) can tame the savage heart (usually some "bad boy" hunk who screws around, but it's okay because he's "damaged") but I really liked the push pull of a love doomed from the start because neither person could or would change their ways. 

It is the ultimate opposites attract...but then what? Sure opposites attract, but if it isn't a complementary kind of opposite, like one shy and one outgoing so that the outgoing one helps they shy one in social situations, if it is more, one is a law enforcement agent and the other likes to kill people for fun and excitement, how do you get over that?

And now you've got me all misty for some old Batman reruns (the ones with Catwoman/Julie Newmar, obviously lol)

I watched the '60s Batman series as a kid, so I don't remember them much. However, Gotham tried to have a love story with their own versions of Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle, where they tried to have Selina bring out Bruce's vigilante tendencies but they didn't really go anywhere with it, unfortunately.

My love story idea is still very much in the development stage, but my story would involve the most by-the-book detective and a criminal who has a strong sense of justice, with the criminal resorting to criminality more because they have to, not because they want to. Throw in a storyline where the two team up to root out government corruption of some kind and you could have a nice story where the criminal gets redemption and the detective actually has reasons for breaking protocol and maybe even the law sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

It's not a trope, but it kind of fits here:  I'm tired of the extreme sex and violence in streaming and cable tv shows.  I don't mind it on occasion, but a lot of it isn't necessary.  We're watching White Collar and rewatching Numb3rs and Chuck and are really enjoying them.  They were popular shows, so it's not like it can't be done.  I did hear that a lot of times, they'll throw in something sexual or violent if they think that a scene is going to cause the audience to get bored.  So, I guess the trope is using sex and violence to substitute lack of anything interesting.  If that's the case, send the writers back to the room and if it's still not working, find other writers. 

White Collar is one of the shows I rewatch a lot. Along with Monk, Psych, Burn Notice, Castle, the Closer and Leverage. They all deal with crimes and bad guys. While Burn Notice and Leverage sometimes have violence most of Eliot's job is beating up bodyguards and stuff. But its not constant endless violence, constant endless sex or serious all the time. The shows are fun and funny. And the characters are  interesting and half the fun of watching the shows. Shawn and Gus making references and being goofy as they catch bad guys. Even the Closer which has some serious episodes still had plenty of funny episodes and plenty of fun.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

We all mock how cancer is used in VSE's but as a person with diabetes, the use of it in very special episodes can cause problems for real life people with the disease as television depiction of diabetes influences how people treat us as human beings and react to us.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

Moriarty isn't even like the Joker because he and Batman have faced off numerous times. Moriarty largely just looms in the background. He's just the most recurring in terms of his influence until the end. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/19/2020 at 10:36 AM, Mabinogia said:

 

 

Nothing will get me to stop watching a show quite as much as the Villain Sue. Just...UGH Well, the Detective Sue will turn me off as well. I just can't relate to a "right all the time" flawed in ways that aren't their fault and only make them even more Sueish for having to overcome the insane mother/broken home/abusive dad/etc. Perfect characters are freaking boring. I have no interest in watching two very self important people play cat and mouse for an hour then come out at a draw because they have finally met their match. 

 

Yep, a true detective is one who is willing to look at ALL possible angles re who/whydunnit,etc.  and at most may admit to having an inkling about what they believe might be the most likely suspect/s but  still be willing to pursue all viable angles/suspects including their 'pet' instead of just thinking it could only be ONE perp and ONE possible scenario out there.  Attempting to round out square pegs to fit in one's predrilled round holes  to satiate one's ego   does NOT   a good detective make. Moreover, NO detective is God with infallible insights and judgments pertaining  to all other humans.  Detective Benson is but one of this legion of what I call Detective/Writing Fails! 

Edited by Blergh
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Blergh said:

Attempting to round out square pegs to fit in one's predrilled round holes  to satiate one's ego is does NOT   a good detective make. Moreover, NO detective is God with infallible insights and judgments pertaining  to all other humans.  Detective Benson is but one of this legion of what I call Detective/Writing Fails! 

Back when I was still watching SVU any time Benson decared she knew it was so and so, I begged and begged the TV Gods to make it ANYONE else! lol 

The almost opposite trope I hate is when the always right, super smart best detective of all time falls for guy/girl almost instantly, refuses to listen to anyone who says this might be a perp, practically ready to marry the person, and SHOCK!!!!!! turns out they were a bad guy the whole time!!!!! SOOOOOO (not) shocking!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Also, as a former small towner myself, I second the annoyance of the "small towns are better" trope. My life has gotten drastically better since I moved to the city, and that's because the city gives you a better opportunity to "find your niche" and because city folk tend to be more open-minded than small towners. In my experience, unless you "fit in" with the culture of the small town the small town isn't a great place.

Bolding is mine, because so much "YES!" to this statement. City people are far from perfect, but the idea that all small town people are these secular saints who welcome strangers with open arms is such bullshit. I would love to see a Hallmark TV movie where the woman from the big city goes to a small town... sees it for the boring shithole it is, tells everyone off for being small-minded, Bible-thumping, sexist assholes, doesn't hook up the criminally bland, super-white, not even all that good looking or likable love interest, and goes the hell home and stays there.

  • Like 19
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's really the fundamental truth that seems to be overlooked. The tv narrative is that 'everyone knows each other' is beneficial when really you want people to stay the fuck out of your business. I tend to think a lot of small towns are homogeneous to the point where you're feeling judged. 

I've lived everywhere from small town to city of 10s of millions. I'd much rather live in a city, say like a Richmond or Minneapolis size, but I'm at a point in my life where a one bedroom apartment for eleventy billion dollars a month and planning an extra hour to get anywhere just isn't going to work for me. I live in a smallish city now - 60,000 ish or so, but it's 'city enough'. I also can afford a house and live close enough to work to go home for lunch. I know the neighbors ok, but no one is up in my business. Like, if there was an emergency I could ask for help, but no one is just coming over to my house uninvited. You also see a lot of people from work if you go out, which is ok because you can actually get a lot done after hours, but sometimes it bugs. Of course, I can up and leave anytime I want to a bigger city to get away that's not quite half a days drive too. 

You don't get that on tv  though. It's either rural af where there's one store or NYC. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/19/2020 at 9:36 AM, Mabinogia said:

And the extension of that: City folk are wrong about everything and they just haven't gone to the right small town to see how life really should be. 

I'll pull up a table by myself because I don't like the "small towners are always right" trope and I hate the "Big City types are so much more sophisticated" trope.  I grew up in a small town and could not wait to get away from it, but I could never stand more than a few hours in a big city.

18 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I'm tired of it too. I get that broadcast network rules can be restrictive and I've lost count how many times I've watched a network show and thought "reality wouldn't be this sanitized", but the upshot is that you get so many producers of non-network shows who pile on the sex and the violence simply because "they can". Like everything, there's a time and a place for sex and/or violence in the story- otherwise, it just makes the writers come across as lazy.

I recently watched a show on Netflix that didn't scrimp on the sex and gore, but if they would have cut most of it, the story would have been much tighter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

More tropes I hate- pretty much any trope that involves children in peril, for two reasons:

  1. I find the stories tend to be cheap drama and exploitative, done simply to tug at the emotional heartstrings of the audience. You hardly ever get a well-crafted plot or an interesting story involving children, as more often than not, the writers just use children knowing the audience will react strongest seeing them as victims.
  2. Even rarer is the writer that goes through and actually harms the kid in some way, if not going all the way and actually killing them. I understand why this happens- I can imagine few writers actually want to harm kids, let alone that few viewers would want to see that- but this has the effect of making almost every story about kids in peril the same: it's a race against time to save the kid with the heroes eventually winning the day and getting the kid back to their grateful parents in one piece, with happiness and joy all around. Never mind the fact that almost all of those rescued kids are going to be psychologically messed up for quite some time.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

whether Child in Peril or Creepy Child, it's usually a young female child they use. I guess Dolls, Dresses and Stuffed Animals are aimed at the mothers in the audience, who either have daughters or were little girls themselves once.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/19/2020 at 3:45 PM, Mabinogia said:

It leads to another trope, the lead cop arch-nemesis. Now, I don't know any cops that well, but I can't imagine they all have this super intelligent Moriarty style nemesis. It's bad enough when the killer/criminal is some super genius, it is sooooo much worse when they have some kind of personal rivalry with some cop, who is also a super genius. Realistic police procedural should not feel like superhero comics. That's what we have comic book shows for. 

IRL there are cases that cops/detectives never forget because they leave an impression on them.  It may not be an "arch nemesis" exactly, but a desire to bring justice to the victim(s) of that criminal.   It's not uncommon for even retired PD to use their spare time to continue going over unsolved cases for that reason.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, magicdog said:

IRL there are cases that cops/detectives never forget because they leave an impression on them.  It may not be an "arch nemesis" exactly, but a desire to bring justice to the victim(s) of that criminal.   It's not uncommon for even retired PD to use their spare time to continue going over unsolved cases for that reason.

I don't mind that at all. That is interesting. The one that got away. It's the bad guy who keeps coming back and taunting and if male/female flirting. An unsolved case that haunts a detective is fine.

It's when the criminal keeps coming back and committing more crimes in a way to attract that one cops attention because it's personal between them that it becomes eye rolling for me. Even if it happens IRL, it is never done well on television.  

It is usually more boring when super villains keep harassing one particular cop. 

I much prefer a one off killer. Get in there, do your crime, get caught or get off, and move on with your life. lol

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

ITA. I hate recurring super criminals so very, very much. They're never quite as interesting as the writers think they are, because the episode plots are always the same: super-crim shows up, does some flashy shit to get his/her favorite cop's attention, does some taunting, does some more shit employing an unlimited supply of disposable minions, then gets away after a final taunt or two.

Even on shows I love and will happily watch reruns of, I never watch these episodes a second time ever.

Edited by CoderLady
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

I hate the recurring supervillain trope because usually the plot gets more tiresome and ridiculous every time, and it makes the supercop look bad for not getting him/her.

A recurring villain is actually fine but some shows just run a character/storyline into the ground by doing it too many times.

Edited by Trini
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

They also end up making the supervillain totally unbelievable because he is a thousand places at once, faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, always wins and always gets away, season after season.  You'd think someone so omniscient and omnipotent would have better things to do than taunt some detective.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

If you are a writer, you only ever write thinly-veiled memoirs. Fiction? Imagination? Putting yourselves in other people's shoes, doing research for your book? What's that? Just write exclusively about your own life. Sure, "write what you know" is generally a good idea but on TV they tend to take it way too far.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jack Shaftoe said:

If you are a writer, you only ever write thinly-veiled memoirs. Fiction? Imagination? Putting yourselves in other people's shoes, doing research for your book? What's that? Just write exclusively about your own life. Sure, "write what you know" is generally a good idea but on TV they tend to take it way too far.

My life isn't interesting enough for a thinly-veiled memoir.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

My entire life is a thinly-veiled memoir.

 

My family's life would be considered a truth is stranger miniseries! There was one episode of The Waltons in which all the sibs, parents and grandparents actually openly objected to how they were depicted in a story John-Boy wrote but usually the whole family seemed to worship him FOR wanting to write about them- and I seriously doubt most families would be so thrilled (at least until the royalties rolled in). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Blergh said:

My family's life would be considered a truth is stranger miniseries! There was one episode of The Waltons in which all the sibs, parents and grandparents actually openly objected to how they were depicted in a story John-Boy wrote but usually the whole family seemed to worship him FOR wanting to write about them- and I seriously doubt most families would be so thrilled (at least until the royalties rolled in). 

The funny thing about this is that The Waltons was a (thinly veiled) memoir itself.  (My father and Earl Hamner were roommates for a short time in NYC.)

  • Like 7
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

5 hours ago, Haleth said:

The funny thing about this is that The Waltons was a (thinly veiled) memoir itself.  (My father and Earl Hamner were roommates for a short time in NYC.)

True that re The Waltons but I can't help but think relatives would more likely not be jumping for joy being depicted. Quite interesting about your father being the late Mr. Hamner's roomie! Perhaps you should tell more in the 'She Smelled Like Blueberries and Bourbon Real Life Celebrity Encounters' subforum!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

If a guy has to do "women's work" around the house he almost always dons an apron and rubber gloves.  I honestly don't know any women who habitually wear an apron, least of all when they are cleaning as opposed to cooking, and same with the rubber gloves.  

  • Like 11
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

If a guy has to do "women's work" around the house he almost always dons an apron and rubber gloves.  I honestly don't know any women who habitually wear an apron, least of all when they are cleaning as opposed to cooking, and same with the rubber gloves.  

I don't wear an apron cleaning, but I do use my rubber gloves pretty regularly.   They save a manicure while scrubbing the bathroom, and I can't stand having dry skin on my hands.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, PennyPlain said:

I honestly don't know any women who habitually wear an apron, least of all when they are cleaning as opposed to cooking, and same with the rubber gloves.  

Those join robes and slippers as things I don't wear that all TV characters do.  (I do have rubber gloves, but the only time I wear them is when using TSP.  And since that's only when prepping walls to be painted, it's about once every ten years.)

Well, I shouldn't say all TV characters have aprons.  Like you were describing, it's the women on TV who all have them -- and in the frilliest, "girliest" colors and styles possible, so that it's funny when men borrow them.

If a man on TV has an apron of his own, it has some stupid slogan about grilling on it, and that's the only time he wears it (right before wacky hijinx ensue, since using a grill on TV always leads to one or more of the following: wayward flames, incinerated meat, a protracted argument about whose grilling strategy is best).

Edited by Bastet
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

If a man has an apron of his own, it has some stupid slogan about grilling on it, and that's the only time he wears it (right before wacky hijinx ensue, since using a grill on TV always leads to one or more of the following: wayward flames, incinerated meat, a protracted argument about whose grilling strategy is best).

I've known many a griller in my day and I've never seen one of them wear an apron while grilling. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/2/2020 at 4:38 PM, CoderLady said:

ITA. I hate recurring super criminals so very, very much. They're never quite as interesting as the writers think they are, because the episode plots are always the same: super-crim shows up, does some flashy shit to get his/her favorite cop's attention, does some taunting, does some more shit employing an unlimited supply of disposable minions, then gets away after a final taunt or two.

Even on shows I love and will happily watch reruns of, I never watch these episodes a second time ever.

 

On 2/2/2020 at 4:50 PM, Trini said:

I hate the recurring supervillain trope because usually the plot gets more tiresome and ridiculous every time, and it makes the supercop look bad for not getting him/her.

A recurring villain is actually fine but some shows just run a character/storyline into the ground by doing it too many times.

That is exactly why I hate the recurring supervillain. They are pretty much the same thing over and over again and getting more ridiculous. The villain has unlimited funds, unlimited goons, unlimited time, brains and skill to pull everything off, taunt the cop and somehow cover all his or her bases.  The reason they keep getting away becomes more dumb and the detective/cops always end up looking bad for letting them get away. One get away is fine. Repeated is annoying I get bored with it and stop carrying. 

The only one I ever liked was Psych's Ying Yang supervillain. It was great, it used the entire cast and everyone got to play an important part. And to my biggest surprise after the first episode Yang gets arrest. I expected it to be like all the others dragging out the Ying Yang as long as they could with Yang before revealing that she had a partner and before dragging it out longer with Ying. Nope she gets arrested and remains in jail. The second episode is when we learn there really was a Ying who does get away in that episode but its dealt with and wrapped up in just one more episode. Three episodes. That's it. Each episode was well done and they moved on. They do something with it in the Psych movie. But that was it. I can't believe it.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

On 2/2/2020 at 3:38 PM, CoderLady said:

ITA. I hate recurring super criminals so very, very much. They're never quite as interesting as the writers think they are, because the episode plots are always the same: super-crim shows up, does some flashy shit to get his/her favorite cop's attention, does some taunting, does some more shit employing an unlimited supply of disposable minions, then gets away after a final taunt or two.

 

On 2/2/2020 at 3:50 PM, Trini said:

I hate the recurring supervillain trope because usually the plot gets more tiresome and ridiculous every time, and it makes the supercop look bad for not getting him/her.

A recurring villain is actually fine but some shows just run a character/storyline into the ground by doing it too many times.

 

12 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

That is exactly why I hate the recurring supervillain. They are pretty much the same thing over and over again and getting more ridiculous. The villain has unlimited funds, unlimited goons, unlimited time, brains and skill to pull everything off, taunt the cop and somehow cover all his or her bases.  The reason they keep getting away becomes more dumb and the detective/cops always end up looking bad for letting them get away. One get away is fine. Repeated is annoying I get bored with it and stop carrying

Did any of you watch Pretty Little Liars? Talk about an annoying super villain "A" knew everything the girls did, saw, said, or even thought about. It was beyond ridiculous.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, GaT said:

Did any of you watch Pretty Little Liars? Talk about an annoying super villain "A" knew everything the girls did, saw, said, or even thought about. It was beyond ridiculous.

The worst of the many terrible, terrible things about A was, this person with unlimited funding, near absolute ominiscience and an army of helpers chooses to use all of that power to harass a gaggle of teenage girls!!?!?! The way A was written A could easily have taken over the entire world and instead decides to mess with one smart girl and three airheads? Before you know who A actually is (stupidest reveal in the history of the world) it is just ridiculous that this near magical supervillain would bother with these girls. 

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2020 at 7:53 PM, Mabinogia said:

I've known many a griller in my day and I've never seen one of them wear an apron while grilling. 

I'm more likely to be standing on my back porch grilling some chicken in a tee shirt and Homer Simpson pajama pants than I am wearing anything I've ever seen any person wearing on TV.

And the apron is a classic trope. I have no idea where it came from. Was this ever a thing?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

And the apron is a classic trope. I have no idea where it came from. Was this ever a thing?

I still wear one when I'm cooking with oil, but I don't use one when grill and I don't know if I've ever seen anyone grill with one either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's always been seen as inherently comical for men to wear an apron, so I think that's why it's still utilized. Kind of lame and lazy, IMO, but what are you gonna do?

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, JTMacc99 said:

I'm more likely to be standing on my back porch grilling some chicken in a tee shirt and Homer Simpson pajama pants than I am wearing anything I've ever seen any person wearing on TV.

And the apron is a classic trope. I have no idea where it came from. Was this ever a thing?

Would those pants be proclaiming how smrt you are?

My father never wore an apron, even to grill, but my mother wore an apron when she cooked, although almost never what I guess you'd call a bib apron. She just wore the kind that go below the waist. I do see men in aprons at things like the Kiwanis Club or Lions Club pancake breakfasts. They don't look silly, but they are also handing me pancakes, so I wouldn't care if they did.

  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I still wear one when I'm cooking with oil, but I don't use one when grill and I don't know if I've ever seen anyone grill with one either.

Don't all men wear an apron that says "kiss the cook" or "I cook with charcoal" or "grill master"? Or at least, all dads do. I've seen the movies, it must be true 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 10

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, auntlada said:

Would those pants be proclaiming how smrt you are?

I just checked, because maybe, but no. They’re just a happy Homer frolicking. 

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GaT said:

Don't all men wear an apron that says "kiss the cook" or "I cook with charcoal" or "grill master"? Or at least, all dads do. I've seen the movies, it must be true 🙂

I remember a "Will & Grace" episode (from the original run) where Jack was all excited about an apron he got, and he was showing it off, and this exchange happened:

Will: "Kiss the Cook." *Nods approvingly*

Jack: "What? Cook?" *Looks at apron, sighs in frustration*

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post

Watching one now I realized I really like even though the particular show itself is only passable.  The trope itself is fun and tends to be one I enjoy.  Its a minor storyline but a fun one. 

Small town cop investigates demon/monser hunters when they leave a trail of bodies and end up looking like serial killers.  

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

It's always been seen as inherently comical for men to wear an apron, so I think that's why it's still utilized. Kind of lame and lazy, IMO, but what are you gonna do?

 

As in the case of Howard Sibshaw in Last of the Summer Wine whose suspicious-for-good-reason wife Pearl insisted in him wearing a frilly feminine apron when doing housechores in a vain effort to keep him from meeting with his wannabee co-adulterer Marina . Yet, Howard would always manage to sneak off AND the two would-be cheaters would invariably have their attempted trysts derailed with only frustration netted via a wide variety of comical mishaps. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think I am burnt out on precocious kids go on a magical adventure and don’t bother telling their parents about it.    I think Stranger Things first season was mainly nostalgia for me.   Locke And Key  is just awful and every time Sabrina lies to her Aunts for some inexplicable reason it just annoys me.  But I actually still like that show.   So 1 out if 3.

On the flip side we have shows like October Faction where mom and dad are lying to their kids.   That at least always made more sense to me.   You want to keep your kids away from your life so you make a choice to never tell them you kill monsters or maybe you are paid assassins or the like but they find out anyway and they act all broody and teenagery.

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size