TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[Anduin]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

"I can't be good at my job and also nice at the same time." - that also applies to criminal shows.

There's no laugh/cry reaction, so take my thumb's up as one of complete agreement. Given that all I hear about procedural shows is that they're rather formulaic, I wonder about the writers and actors. Are they happy doing the same old thing, or would they rather try something different but are uncomfortable taking risks?

[DoctorAtomic]

They probably appreciate the steady paycheck mostly. 

[SusanM]

36 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

They probably appreciate the steady paycheck mostly. 

I always wonder why women take onguest starring parts where they end up playing the stereotypically shrewish wife or, more frequently, the money grubbing shrewish ex-wife - but yeah, realistically if you start getting too choosey about the roles you play you stop working.

Edited June 6, 2022 by SusanM

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Anduin said:

There's no laugh/cry reaction, so take my thumb's up as one of complete agreement. Given that all I hear about procedural shows is that they're rather formulaic, I wonder about the writers and actors. Are they happy doing the same old thing, or would they rather try something different but are uncomfortable taking risks?

Actors who choose to stay in long-running TV shows do it for a variety of reasons one being the already mentioned steady paycheck.  They also get a pretty set schedule which is a plus for those with children.  They know what months they will be working and in the same location.  No flying around the world working on different sets living out of a suitcase in a hotel room. I remember an interview Robert Sean Leonard did when he took the role of Wilson in House.  He was drawn to the role because he knew it was steady work and he was not the lead so less time on set.  

I also believe that the actors who choose roles on long-running TV shows are aware of their limitations as an actor.  They know they are good enough for a supporting role but lack the talent and/or charisma to be a lead.  They don't risk it because they know what will happen if they flame out--becoming a laughingstock and work drying up.  

[meep.meep]

They know they are good enough for a supporting role but others judge that they lack the talent and/or charisma to be a lead.

I bet every single one of them would much rather be the lead than a supporting character, at least some of the time.  None of them think they are lesser actors.  Frequently they are much better actors than the leads, just not as pretty.

When I worked at NASA, every single person, except my office mate, was convinced that they would make a great astronaut - better than the actual astronauts.  My office mate was afraid of heights.

[Annber03]

6 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Actors who choose to stay in long-running TV shows do it for a variety of reasons one being the already mentioned steady paycheck.  They also get a pretty set schedule which is a plus for those with children.  They know what months they will be working and in the same location.  No flying around the world working on different sets living out of a suitcase in a hotel room. I remember an interview Robert Sean Leonard did when he took the role of Wilson in House.  He was drawn to the role because he knew it was steady work and he was not the lead so less time on set.  

This. 

Plus, that kind of work looks good on an actor's resume, because to potential employers, it means that they know, or at least, have a sense, that the actors won't be super picky about whatever roles they take, and don't have that attitude (or at least, don't present the attitude) that they're "too good" for some procedural drama or some silly sitcom or whatever.

And if it's steady work, then that's a great way for actors to show that they can show up and be on time on a regular basis and put in the necessary hours they need to put in to do the show. All of that will bode very well for them down the line if people are looking to hire them for future shows/movies, because the people hiring them will know that they'll be reliable and responsible and professional, and may have an easier time adjusting to whatever new jobs they get. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Annber03

[DoctorAtomic]

You can still work on your craft on those shows. Even within the formula, each actor has to be fresh and sharp so viewers want to check them out every week. 

[Ambrosefolly]

On 6/6/2022 at 12:14 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Actors who choose to stay in long-running TV shows do it for a variety of reasons one being the already mentioned steady paycheck.  They also get a pretty set schedule which is a plus for those with children.  They know what months they will be working and in the same location.  No flying around the world working on different sets living out of a suitcase in a hotel room. I remember an interview Robert Sean Leonard did when he took the role of Wilson in House.  He was drawn to the role because he knew it was steady work and he was not the lead so less time on set.  

I also believe that the actors who choose roles on long-running TV shows are aware of their limitations as an actor.  They know they are good enough for a supporting role but lack the talent and/or charisma to be a lead.  They don't risk it because they know what will happen if they flame out--becoming a laughingstock and work drying up.  

On 6/6/2022 at 7:01 PM, Annber03 said:

This. 

Plus, that kind of work looks good on an actor's resume, because to potential employers, it means that they know, or at least, have a sense, that the actors won't be super picky about whatever roles they take, and don't have that attitude (or at least, don't present the attitude) that they're "too good" for some procedural drama or some silly sitcom or whatever.

And if it's steady work, then that's a great way for actors to show that they can show up and be on time on a regular basis and put in the necessary hours they need to put in to do the show. All of that will bode very well for them down the line if people are looking to hire them for future shows/movies, because the people hiring them will know that they'll be reliable and responsible and professional, and may have an easier time adjusting to whatever new jobs they get. 

I remember reading an interview with Mila Kunis and she said she made all of her "F*ck You" money from that 70s Show (and I bet Family Guy now), and it was a mistake to think that actors make their money off of movies, so she could be picky about film roles. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Ambrosefolly

[Shannon L.]

This isn't a trope, but a directorial choice:  I'm tired of shows that jump back and forth in time.  I understand doing it when characters are remember past moments in their lives and I don't usually get confused since most directors/writers are good at making the time jumps obvious, but I just think it's getting old and doesn't always make for a better show than just telling the story from beginning to end.

[Zella]

My biggest problem with jumping back and forth in stories in when the more modern characters have a historical mystery to solve. I have no clue why that bothers me. I love history. I love mysteries. I love historical mysteries. But as soon as I detect that they are trying to unravel some past mystery (usually about their family) that we are also watching unfold in real time, I want to nope on out of there. I think one of my problems is I've read so many lazy books that hinge on this plot point wherein the more contemporary story is so much less interesting that I just prejudge the trope. I don't need some modern character to be the reason I give a shit about the older story or feel connected to it. 

I was a little worried when I started watching Pachinko last month that they were going to restructure the show around a family mystery when I saw that they abandoned the novel's chronological structure and opted to flash back and forth between the past and present. I still wasn't quite as big of a fan as the modern story as I was the historical material, but I was so relieved that they didn't try to frame it as a fact-finding mission for Solomon about his grandmother's past. 

[Spartan Girl]

So I’m not sure if this counts as a trope, but it’s happened in several different shows and (Lifetime) movies, so here it goes: when the boyfriend/girlfriend of a rape victim acts like the cuckholded victim after the MC is drugged and assaulted just because they mistook it for consensual sex.

The SVU episode “Betrayal’s Climax” is a particularly horrid example because the boyfriend Manny slut-shamed his girlfriend after the guys in his attacked her because she had a forced orgasm and assumed it meant she enjoyed it. And the worst part? It was all because he was projecting his own guilt that he KNEW the gang was going to attack her and was too cowardly to stop it.

[JustHereForFood]

On 6/17/2022 at 2:15 PM, Spartan Girl said:

So I’m not sure if this counts as a trope, but it’s happened in several different shows and (Lifetime) movies, so here it goes: when the boyfriend/girlfriend of a rape victim acts like the cuckholded victim after the MC is drugged and assaulted just because they mistook it for consensual sex.

The SVU episode “Betrayal’s Climax” is a particularly horrid example because the boyfriend Manny slut-shamed his girlfriend after the guys in his attacked her because she had a forced orgasm and assumed it meant she enjoyed it. And the worst part? It was all because he was projecting his own guilt that he KNEW the gang was going to attack her and was too cowardly to stop it.

Let's not forget that Buffy herself was guilty of this (though I blame the writing more than her).

[DearEvette]

On 6/8/2022 at 3:31 PM, Shannon L. said:

This isn't a trope, but a directorial choice:  I'm tired of shows that jump back and forth in time.

Agreed.  I tend to dislike dual timeline stories.  Mainly because it is rare that the story in both timelines are equally interesting.  Usually I love one and am impatient to get back to it and resent the time taken on the other one.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I hate "Rip van Winkle" plots, especially when they're played for laughs (Senior Year is the latest example). Maybe this is just a "me" thing, but I don't think there's anything funny about the idea of falling into a coma and losing literal years of your life. In fact, I find it a horrifying prospect. I'd hate to wake up several years older, the world and my loved ones changed (or even dead).

I don't blame you if you're all rolling your eyes at me, and, no, I don't personally know anyone who's even been in a coma... but years-long comas are a thing. Just because they don't happen to everyone doesn't mean they don't happen at all. I just fail to find the entertainment or whimsy in someone losing years of their life having a wacky adventure, because the implications are just a big elephant in the room to me. 

I don't wish to imply no one has done this trope well; Red Dwarf and Futurama* (before they horribly outstayed their welcome) had protagonists that lost centuries (if not millennia) of their lives due to cryogenic stasis (not exactly like a coma, but the principle is the same). While neither show got too heavy about it, they also didn't completely shy away from the darker, more depressing aspects of Lister and Fry's respective situations.

*Avatar: The Last Airbender also handled this trope well (albeit also with cryogenic stasis).

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

Agreed.  I tend to dislike dual timeline stories.  Mainly because it is rare that the story in both timelines are equally interesting.  Usually I love one and am impatient to get back to it and resent the time taken on the other one.

I think I’m alone in enjoying non-linear timelines these days. It can get confusing, but mostly adds to the story imo.

[DoctorAtomic]

To be fair, it wasn't Fry's fault. He got set up because he did the nasty in the pasty. 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Sort of related to the non-linear timeline discussion, I am tired of the trope of someone looking at a cold case from 30 years ago, re-interviewing people, etc. and somehow resolving it (usually by uncovering a huge conspiracy).  In reality, solve rates on current cases are often low; solve rates on 30 year old cases are incredibly low.  There are some high profile ones.  That doesn't make it a norm. 

[Mabinogia]

7 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

Sort of related to the non-linear timeline discussion, I am tired of the trope of someone looking at a cold case from 30 years ago, re-interviewing people, etc. and somehow resolving it (usually by uncovering a huge conspiracy).  In reality, solve rates on current cases are often low; solve rates on 30 year old cases are incredibly low.  There are some high profile ones.  That doesn't make it a norm. 

I love older cold cases. I have a thing for historic crime. I find the ones where a detective has been working on a case for years, the "one that got away" if you will, and finally gets his guy/gal. I don't like the ones where the new young, hot shot comes in and finds the one piece of evidence that every other detective for the last 30 years has missed and solves the case because these "old timers" just aren't hip enough to crime solving to have noticed...

which leads me to...I have grown tired of "amateur detective" shows, your Psych style shows, where the actual detectives are written as morons so our random detective can solve the case with their "special skills". Monk doesn't bother as much because he was a cop before, he's gone through the training and has the expertise. It just annoys that if it's not a police procedural the police are idiots, and if it is a police procedural the police are beyond reproach. In truth, cops are human just like the rest of us, some are smarter than others some are corrupt, some are good and some bad. On TV they are all black or white. 

[supposebly]

2 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

It just annoys that if it's not a police procedural the police are idiots, and if it is a police procedural the police are beyond reproach.

It is funny that these types of shows are so popular in Hollywood, considering that the US police has some of the shortest training and schooling in the G7 countries.

BBC: Basic comparison of G7 countries

A bit more detailed info.

https://cavemancircus.com/2021/04/21/police-training-in-the-us-vs-other-countries/

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't think the Lassie and Jules were written as morons on Psych. They had to follow procedure. Gus and Shawn could just walk in or sometimes were hired by a private party or even the Santa Barbara department. A lot of times they were on the same side and went on different leads. The conceit of the show was that Shawn's dad (a cop) rigorously grilled observational skills into Shawn to where he was like Monk. They literally said so in the finale. 

Now, Shawn certainly acted way too childish at times, but he still had to keep up the 'psychic' schtick. 

[Danny Franks]

On 6/8/2022 at 8:31 PM, Shannon L. said:

This isn't a trope, but a directorial choice:  I'm tired of shows that jump back and forth in time.  I understand doing it when characters are remember past moments in their lives and I don't usually get confused since most directors/writers are good at making the time jumps obvious, but I just think it's getting old and doesn't always make for a better show than just telling the story from beginning to end.

I felt like that about We Own This City at first. The time jumps seemed unnecessary and confusing and left me struggling to piece together the timeline of when certain cops became crooked, and when the investigation into them started.

But then the guys on the Ringer TV podcast made a point that got me thinking - the time jumps were designed to confuse, and to eventually make the viewer understand that there was no smoking gun, no big 'this is it' moment where Wayne Jenkins or the others first stole money. Because it's always going on. Before them, there were other guys doing it too, and there will be guys doing it after them. There was no tragic slide into criminality that could make us feel sorry for them (except Suiter, but his storyline was a little different).

[Zella]

I agree it was a stylistic decision and to drive home that point, but I also think it is just a very convoluted story. I read 2 books about the case before watching the show, with 2 different chronologies, and I was still constantly confused trying to keep straight who was who while reading both books.

I'm an avid nonfiction and true crime reader and would like to think I have at least basic reading comprehension, and I have never had that hard of a time keeping track of a plot. At first I thought it was weaknesses with the books, but as I was finishing the second one, it dawned on me that it would be confusing no matter how it was presented. 

The show was actually clearer than the books, at least to me, but it still took me an entire episode to figure out what was going on, and that was even with the background from the books to aid me. 

[merylinkid]

10 hours ago, Zella said:

and I have never had that hard of a time keeping track of a plot. At first I thought it was weaknesses with the books, but as I was finishing the second one, it dawned on me that it would be confusing no matter how it was presented. 

Welcomd to Baltimore City Politics.  Where its not just the cops who are messed up. Where the State's Attorney (DA everywhere else) is currently under indictment for fraud. But is still in office and just presented her budget request to the City Council.   One member of which is her husband.  Who got cited by the Ethics board for what HE did.   First he challenged it, then he said he would follow all recommendations of the Ethics board, now he has filed to appeal the decision.   Convoluted doesn't begin to cover BAWLtimore.

[nokat]

On 6/20/2022 at 2:54 PM, Mabinogia said:

which leads me to...I have grown tired of "amateur detective" shows, your Psych style shows, where the actual detectives are written as morons

Midsomar Murders, it's like half the village has to die. Murder She Wrote Jessica Fletcher picking up evidence and getting the murderer to confess. The detectives are always morons.

[Mabinogia]

8 hours ago, nokat said:

Midsomar Murders, it's like half the village has to die.

That show made me second guess my life long dream of living in a quaint English village. 

8 hours ago, nokat said:

Murder She Wrote Jessica Fletcher picking up evidence and getting the murderer to confess.

And that one has me second guessing my plan to retire in Maine....unless I become a mystery writer... hmmm, then at least I'm safe, but then every time a friend or relative comes to town someone will get murdered, and any time I go on a trip someone will get murdered. Maybe I'll just move to Santa Barbara. That Lassie is quite a looker.

I do actually think Psych did a decent job in the beginning with making Lassie not a total bumbling idiot but a man who played it by the book. There were even a couple times when he kind of put Shawn on the case because he couldn't solve it by following procedure. That kind of tapered off as the show went on but they did well at t he start. It was just the first show that popped into my head. 

[merylinkid]

Hey to be fair to Midsommar Murders, it's a POLICE procedural.   It's Detective Chief Inspector Barnaby.   Although Tom will always be the original, unlike his "cousin" John that they suddenly brought up also being a DCI.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Continuing with the detective tropes, the detective who is brilliant and can solve cases that no one else can, but he has a difficult time communicating with others or maintaining healthy relationships. and takes each case so much to heart that he is often close to suicide and/or allowing himself to be murdered by the suspected killer. 

[Raja]

3 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

Continuing with the detective tropes, the detective who is brilliant and can solve cases that no one else can, but he has a difficult time communicating with others or maintaining healthy relationships. and takes each case so much to heart that he is often close to suicide and/or allowing himself to be murdered by the suspected killer. 

Sherlock Holmes cast a large shadow on the genre 

[supposebly]

24 minutes ago, Raja said:

Sherlock Holmes cast a large shadow on the genre 

29 minutes ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

but he has a difficult time communicating with others or maintaining healthy relationships.

I'd say that is really not how the character was written originally. I'm rereading the stories at the moment and that's rarely how he is portrayed. He laughs at stupid people (The Redheaded League) and has little patience with bad policing (The Norwood Builder) but he tends to be attentive and gentle with clients. The woman who got cheated by her stepfather in A Case of Identity.

I don't know how that interpretation as an uncommunicative asshole came about. I would love to blame Steven Moffatt and the writers of Dr House M.D. but I think that trope has been around longer. And some who is friends for as long as he is with Watson, I wouldn't say he can't maintain a healthy relationship. Just because he doesn't have a lot of friends, doesn't mean he can't keep any.

[DoctorAtomic]

Holmes in the books has always been highly highly complimentary Watson too. 

[merylinkid]

Holmes in the books was a Victorian gentleman.   He was polite and followed social mores to a certain extent.   Somehow that has evolved into a misogonystic asshole who is somewhere on the Autism spectrum.    Who is also somehow carry a torch for Irene Adler despite the fact that in the ONE STORY she appears in, he 1) never actually meet the lady and 2) she disappears with her new HUSBAND.   

To keep it on topic:   I hate the "modern" Sherlock Holmes tropes.

[Wiendish Fitch]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Holmes in the books was a Victorian gentleman.   He was polite and followed social mores to a certain extent.   Somehow that has evolved into a misogonystic asshole who is somewhere on the Autism spectrum.    Who is also somehow carry a torch for Irene Adler despite the fact that in the ONE STORY she appears in, he 1) never actually meet the lady and 2) she disappears with her new HUSBAND.   

To keep it on topic:   I hate the "modern" Sherlock Holmes tropes.

FFS, the Irene Adler in Arthur Conan Doyle's story is a million times cooler and more progressive than the pathetic, wack job idiot on the Steven Moffat series over a century later. 

[DoctorAtomic]

I liked the actor that played her though. 

[CoderLady]

5 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Holmes in the books was a Victorian gentleman.   He was polite and followed social mores to a certain extent.   Somehow that has evolved into a misogonystic asshole who is somewhere on the Autism spectrum.    Who is also somehow carry a torch for Irene Adler despite the fact that in the ONE STORY she appears in, he 1) never actually meet the lady and 2) she disappears with her new HUSBAND.   

To keep it on topic:   I hate the "modern" Sherlock Holmes tropes.

Holmes and Irene Adler actually did meet more than once in A Scandal in Bohemia, but each time one or the other of them was in disguise.

I think Jeremy Brett nailed it as Holmes in the ITV series. He was, as you note, polite and gentlemanly and a bit reserved, but he was also genuinely compassionate to clients and witnesses in distress.

The ITV series was faithful to the original stories in more ways than its excellent characterizations of Holmes and Watson (who was definitely nobody's fool). I have a big fat book of all the Holmes stories in one volume and when watching the series sometimes I'd follow along with the story the episode was based on. They always did a remarkable job of staying close to the story, mostly just broadening the storytelling away from Watson's first-person narratives.

I also hate the "modern" Sherlock Holmes tropes. Having seen it done well, I think they're just lazy, unskilled writing.

[DoctorAtomic]

I think what grates on the modern Holmes trope is that if someone is really smart then they make it like something is wrong or off with them. There's lots of just real smart people who work hard. There doesn't have to be anything other that that. 

It's like how now every villain has to have a tragic origin. There's plenty of people that are just bad or greedy or spiteful. There doesn't always have to be a reason. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I think what grates on the modern Holmes trope is that if someone is really smart then they make it like something is wrong or off with them. There's lots of just real smart people who work hard. There doesn't have to be anything other that that. 

This brings me to the flip side of this particular coin: characters who are good and noble precisely because they're stupid. There are a few characters who fit this mold who are fairly tolerable, but for the most part, I really hate the veneration of fictional (and, let's face it, real) idiots. It stinks of an ugly anti-intellectualism that I find really disturbing.  I may be in the minority, but I don't like "himbo" characters (Joey from Friends tops my list), because there's nothing attractive to me about willfully ignorant men who treat books like poison ivy.* 

*Yes, I remember the episode of Friends where Joey allegedly read The Shining twice, and, no, I never bought that for a second. I can only suspend my disbelief so much.

[JustHereForFood]

˄

I think this is related to how writers assign characters some specific character traits at the beginning, then when those characters become popular, they think it is because of those traits. So they start to exaggerate them and at some point, they cross the line when those characters become caricatures of their former selves. Big Bang Theory, I'm looking at you!

[Zella]

I also think that TV writers in general just don't know how to write smart people. They think if you are smart, you are automatically a socially awkward asshole. Ala Bones and Sheldon. It's a trope I cannot stand. Are some smart people socially awkward assholes? Yes. But maybe it's because of the work environments I've tended to have (writing centers, teaching, libraries), most of the really smart people I know are not jerks and they are not completely unable to function in society or uncaring about people. They can definitely be a bit quirky and march to the beat of their own drum, but just nowhere near this insufferable stereotype.

I also feel like most shows can't write truly stupid characters well. Or maybe in that case, a lot of actors have a hard time really embracing a character's stupidity and want to let you know they are in on the joke. That was something I loved about Justified. The characters who were truly dumb were very dumb in a way that seemed extremely believable to me, and it was never like the actor was winking at you about it. 

[Annber03]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

I also feel like most shows can't write truly stupid characters well. Or maybe in that case, a lot of actors have a hard time really embracing a character's stupidity and want to let you know they are in on the joke. That was something I loved about Justified. The characters who were truly dumb were very dumb in a way that seemed extremely believable to me, and it was never like the actor was winking at you about it. 

The big issue is that a lot of shows feature characters that are perhaps a bit naïve, and maybe a little more innocent and trusting of the world than most people would be, but they're not stupid. They still have some kind of intelligence about them, and can still come through with some genuine insights at times.

But over time they get written to be so dumb that it's a miracle they're able to dress themselves each day. 

[Zella]

6 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

The big issue is that a lot of shows feature characters that are perhaps a bit naïve, and maybe a little more innocent and trusting of the world than most people would be, but they're not stupid. They still have some kind of intelligence about them, and can still come through with some genuine insights at times.

But over time they get written to be so dumb that it's a miracle they're able to dress themselves each day. 

That's probably true, but the ones I'm talking about are well beyond even that as a starting point. Like Dewey "I have four kidneys!" Crowe. 

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

I also feel like most shows can't write truly stupid characters well. Or maybe in that case, a lot of actors have a hard time really embracing a character's stupidity and want to let you know they are in on the joke.

I put this more on the writers.  I've heard/read many an actor say no matter how skilled they are, the one thing they find most difficult is playing stupid, because they're pretty run of the mill in terms of intelligence, but TV stupid is so fucking stupid it's hard to properly inhabit and present.

And that female actors have the biggest struggle with this, given how pathetically stupid their characters are still too often tasked with being.

I think most actors would embrace and embody a character's stupidity when there's a foundation laid and a purpose served, just like they'll do with a character's other negative traits, but too often it's just fucking dumb and can't be salvaged by performance.

[Spartan Girl]

14 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

This brings me to the flip side of this particular coin: characters who are good and noble precisely because they're stupid. There are a few characters who fit this mold who are fairly tolerable, but for the most part, I really hate the veneration of fictional (and, let's face it, real) idiots. It stinks of an ugly anti-intellectualism that I find really disturbing.  I may be in the minority, but I don't like "himbo" characters (Joey from Friends tops my list), because there's nothing attractive to me about willfully ignorant men who treat books like poison ivy.* 

*Yes, I remember the episode of Friends where Joey allegedly read The Shining twice, and, no, I never bought that for a second. I can only suspend my disbelief so much.

They pulled that same crap with Brittany on Glee. She was portrayed as someone who was supposedly sweet and pure because she was stupid. But in reality, she exploited that view of herself by playing the victim. She was so thin-skinned that she acted like everyone that ever dared to call her stupid, let alone disagree with her hair-brained ideas like her dinosaur theme prom, was a bully.

[Danielg342]

I tend to think of Hollywood's portrayal of stupid people to be more about Hollywood's inability to write smart people well, as opposed to an inability to write stupidity.

At it's core is the conundrum that the show's writers- be it a procedural or a sitcom, because both genres suffer from this problem- have cast other characters around a central character, the "hero" of the show. Usually the writers get around this by giving the main character a certain gimmick, usually by casting that character as some kind of "fish out of water", which helps explain why they have insights the other characters don't have.

A good writer would at least understand that what makes the main character special is that they simply have a different perspective than the other characters, meaning they don't have to sacrifice the others' brains to make it work. A great writer would be able to understand the characters' intrinsic differences and work them into the characterization- i.e., the gimmick character provides their perspectives and new insights that help with the case, but they need their law enforcement buddy to make sure everything they're doing is legal.

Unfortunately, that apparently takes a lot of work, so Hollywood tends to go the easy route- make everyone else dumb so that the main character retains their specialness, because they're the only smart ones in the room. This tends to reduce the supporting characters to doing little more than asking questions to the main character simply for exposition. At its worst, the supporting cast can look so dumb you wonder how they got their jobs in the first place.

This also creates another problem- how do you make the main character rounded? Most of the time I see this resolved by making the main character brilliant at their job but horrible at life, with the other characters being the opposite. On her eponymous show, Alice can solve the most complex mathematical equations, diagnose the rarest of diseases, communicate with every living being under the Sun and hack into the computers of the Pentagon, but she can't figure out how to coordinate her socks or work a microwave, and pees her pants at the mere thought of approaching the cute guy who lives across the hall from her. Bobbi, on the other hand, seems to possess no actual skills that would make her competent at her job despite the fact she's apparently been in her position for decades, but she can cook a wide variety of mean dishes, has impeccable fashion sense and has a loving husband and a successful family life.

Sounds like "problem solved" and, truth be told, that kind of a story could actually work if the writers are actually committed to those characters and to deconstructing them and exploring them.

Unfortunately, Hollywood tends to not go beyond the base characterizations, leaving the characters flat and essentially uninteresting. I mean, I can understand this to a certain extent when the focus of the show are the situations Alice and Bobbi end up in, because the show's writers figure what will keep the audiences coming back will be how interesting the "cases of the week" are, but such a mentality forgets that audiences are more likely to stick around because they like and- more importantly- care about the characters, not the cases, especially in today's day and age where just about every possible case of the week has been explored before in some capacity already.

Besides, in a procedural, how many times will Alice's personal problems and Bobbi's excellence at those skills actually pop up? Once or twice a season? People who watch Alice for the long haul might find some appreciation in that, but will they- and the wider audience- stick around long enough to care?

In short, the failure of Alice and Bobbi has more to do with the failure to understand that Alice can still be the star of the show and the brightest one on the show without having to sacrifice Bobbi's brains or skills to do so. It does require a lot of work in order to figure out the right nuances, but the result is far more rewarding.

On 6/25/2022 at 4:06 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

It's like how now every villain has to have a tragic origin. There's plenty of people that are just bad or greedy or spiteful. There doesn't always have to be a reason. 

Having written these kinds of characters, I can say that I find them far more interesting than a character who is simply evil "just because". It's a far more interesting story to understand how the character became so bad in the first place, especially because it opens up many other narrative possibilities to explore. For example, finding out the murder victim was killed because of a jealous boyfriend opens the possibility to have the hero race against time to save the man she was having an affair with, because he'd be next.

I know there is a whole debate in the criminology world with regards to the "nature vs. nurture" debate, and I'm sure many criminologists would bristle at the idea that reasons for criminality can be reduced to such simple explanations and examinations.

From a story perspective, though, the criminal with a motive is far more interesting than the one who doesn't- even if both types are abjectly realistic.

[tennisgurl]

On 6/25/2022 at 8:00 AM, merylinkid said:

To keep it on topic:   I hate the "modern" Sherlock Holmes tropes.

I feel the same way about almost every Dracula adaptation that has been made in the entire 20th/21st century. Some of the adaptations are pretty good, but I would absolutely love it if someone made a movie or a TV show about the actual book featuring the actual characters, not the versions of them that have been patched together through years of adaptation. I especially hate that so many versions make Lucy the stereotypical "slutty girl that dies first in the horror movie" type of character, or goes the other way and makes her painfully basic and lame compared to "not like the other girls" Mina, when in the books Lucy was fun, vivacious, sweet, and she and Mina are the best of friends. She had several suiters but she was ever the proper Victorian lady with them, caring about all of them and when she made her choice, the other two took it with grace. Adaptations also really love to make Dracula this sex symbol and have him and Mina fall in love, usually turning it into a metaphor where she chooses sexy bad boy Dracula over her "boring" fiancé Jonathan, rejecting Victorian sexual norms, despite Dracula being an obvious metaphor for rape in the novel and Jonathan and Mina being a very loving and supportive couple. The actual novel certainly has a lot of aspects that haven't aged well, but there is so much there for a great modern adaptation that uses the actual book, but its never happened. 

As Orson Wells said, "Dracula would make a marvelous movie. In fact, nobody has ever made it... all the movies are based on the play."

[DoctorAtomic]

I still like the one with Keanu. 

[Mabinogia]

13 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I know there is a whole debate in the criminology world with regards to the "nature vs. nurture" debate, and I'm sure many criminologists would bristle at the idea that reasons for criminality can be reduced to such simple explanations and examinations.

I love exploring villain's histories. I'm not talking about forgiving or excusing them for their actions because of a bad childhood, but I find it fascinating to explore what turns someone into a monster. For me it's a combo of nature and nurture, not an either or. 

I usually prefer the "villain" in a show/story/movie because they are given more complex motivations while the "good guy" is usually just good because they are the hero. 

[scarynikki12]

6 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

"Dracula would make a marvelous movie. In fact, nobody has ever made it... all the movies are based on the play."

This is me with Frankenstein. They completely miss the point of the book and just focus on the scary monster who is afraid of fire. Some have gone so far as to present Victor as entirely sympathetic rather than the actual villain of the story. And the book isn't super long and therefore needs to be cut in order to adequately adapt. It's a short read and, while still open for many interpretations, has straightforward story beats. They make it harder than it needs to be.

The play quote reminds me that many of the And Then There Were None retellings are also based on the play rather than the book. Has there ever been a screen adaptation that actually made it all the way to the ending? I haven't found one that did though there are a number that have changed it, I assume, to make it more palatable for the audience. That's another one where every adaptation should be as faithful to the original story as possible yet never is.

[DoctorAtomic]

I suppose I should have said sympathetic origin for the villain. Just motivated by spite or wanting to show someone up is fine. It's ok if the reason is petty. 

[Zella]

10 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I feel the same way about almost every Dracula adaptation that has been made in the entire 20th/21st century. Some of the adaptations are pretty good, but I would absolutely love it if someone made a movie or a TV show about the actual book featuring the actual characters, not the versions of them that have been patched together through years of adaptation. I especially hate that so many versions make Lucy the stereotypical "slutty girl that dies first in the horror movie" type of character, or goes the other way and makes her painfully basic and lame compared to "not like the other girls" Mina, when in the books Lucy was fun, vivacious, sweet, and she and Mina are the best of friends. She had several suiters but she was ever the proper Victorian lady with them, caring about all of them and when she made her choice, the other two took it with grace. Adaptations also really love to make Dracula this sex symbol and have him and Mina fall in love, usually turning it into a metaphor where she chooses sexy bad boy Dracula over her "boring" fiancé Jonathan, rejecting Victorian sexual norms, despite Dracula being an obvious metaphor for rape in the novel and Jonathan and Mina being a very loving and supportive couple. The actual novel certainly has a lot of aspects that haven't aged well, but there is so much there for a great modern adaptation that uses the actual book, but its never happened. 

As Orson Wells said, "Dracula would make a marvelous movie. In fact, nobody has ever made it... all the movies are based on the play."

I first read Dracula as a teenager, and I still remember the moment it dawned on me that he doesn't look like Bela Lugosi and has a Fu Manchu mustache in the book. 😂

But yes I definitely agree none of the adaptations have really captured the essence of the book. When I was in grad school for an MA in literature, one of the more interesting research projects I ended up undertaking for a class was about Dracula and his various manifestations in pop culture. I was tracking how adaptations establish "credibility," but it never entails being authentic to the text. Thomas Leitch calls this fetishizing. (Not the sexy kind. The literary kind. 😁)

[Ohiopirate02]

12 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

The play quote reminds me that many of the And Then There Were None retellings are also based on the play rather than the book. Has there ever been a screen adaptation that actually made it all the way to the ending? I haven't found one that did though there are a number that have changed it, I assume, to make it more palatable for the audience. That's another one where every adaptation should be as faithful to the original story as possible yet never is.

There was one that was on Lifetime in the US about 5 years ago that followed the book.