TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[Mabinogia]

55 minutes ago, Dr.OO7 said:

And yes, it's annoying. Someone living or visiting whatever famous city just HAS to a view of whatever famous landmark the city has just outside their hotel/apartment window, even if it would be geographically impossible.

I wish that were true. Last time I went to a famous city my hotel view was an alleyway between my hotel and the shopping center next door. 

[Dr.OO7]

3 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I wish that were true. Last time I went to a famous city my hotel view was an alleyway between my hotel and the shopping center next door. 

I guess I got lucky when I went to Vancouver last year--I got a gorgeous view of the harbor. 

[Zella]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I wish that were true. Last time I went to a famous city my hotel view was an alleyway between my hotel and the shopping center next door. 

The brief time I I spent in Paris, my hotel overlooked a cemetery. A picturesque cemetery, but it was sure no Eiffel Tower. In fact, we were so far from the city main attractions on this school trip that we quickly realized we'd blow all of our money trying to get taxis on the first leg of the trip, so we had to just settle for exploring the cemetery. My family likes walking around cemeteries, but that trip was how I learned that some people find that really weird and creepy. 

[Haleth]

11 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

When I was in Paris you could see it from everywhere, and all the French people would say 'how you say, English...' when they wanted to ask me something and laughed like 'hohn hohn hohn'. 

 

Of course they all carried baguettes?

 

Quote

My family likes walking around cemeteries, but that trip was how I learned that some people find that really weird and creepy. 

We just did that in Los Angeles last month.  Pretty interesting!

Edited May 16, 2023 by Haleth

[DoctorAtomic]

4 hours ago, Haleth said:

Of course they all carried baguettes?

There was whimsical music EVERYWHERE. 

I was actually in Paris for real. I stayed on a side street near L'Opera; iirc there was a glimpse of the tower from the balcony. It was a tiny, old hotel, but awesome. So it wasn't in the heart of Paris, but still in the city. 

I can't look at the pictures right now to verify because they are actual pictures in a photo album. 

[ABay]

I also stayed near the Opera! Not the heart of the city, as you say, but a 10 minute bus ride to the Louvre and left bank. So many bus lines stop there and there's a Metro station as well. That area was the site of the best part of my trip last year. The marathon was that Sunday and the runners went along the main avenue a block away. I had no idea what was happening, I just heard a lot of noise and music from my room and went to investigate. In the square where the runners turned on the avenue there was a group of musicians, mostly brass instruments, serenading everyone. They looked college-age and often danced to the music. Those serendipitous moments are the best part of any trip.

[Blergh]

16 hours ago, Dr.OO7 said:

That trope is literally called the Eiffel Tower Effect.

And yes, it's annoying. Someone living or visiting whatever famous city just HAS to a view of whatever famous landmark the city has just outside their hotel/apartment window, even if it would be geographically impossible.

But what's often funnier is how often a show will display a shot of the Eiffel Tower- and immediately underneath the Tower itself  there will be a large illustrated title reading 'Paris, France' or just 'Paris'- as if the viewers at home might have thought the location had changed to the Kings Island Amusement Park outside Cincinatti, Ohio!

[ABay]

Could be the casino in Las Vegas!

[Haleth]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

There was whimsical music EVERYWHERE

Certainly La Vie en Rose. 

[DoctorAtomic]

We saw Pepe le Pew serenading a cat in the Rodin gardens to La Vie en Rose.

We actually walked everywhere because there was so much odds and ends to see; old houses, a statue, food stands, all that. So we walked to the Louvre. So the tower was actually seen all over the place. 

And we had croque monsieur with 1664s at an outdoor bistro. So we were totally Frawnch. 

 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Ah, memories.....
 

 

[andromeda331]

On 5/15/2023 at 11:25 PM, Zella said:

The brief time I I spent in Paris, my hotel overlooked a cemetery. A picturesque cemetery, but it was sure no Eiffel Tower. In fact, we were so far from the city main attractions on this school trip that we quickly realized we'd blow all of our money trying to get taxis on the first leg of the trip, so we had to just settle for exploring the cemetery. My family likes walking around cemeteries, but that trip was how I learned that some people find that really weird and creepy. 

My mom's family loved to do that. Especially on vacations. I like to walk through them and try imagine what their lives were like.

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

My mom's family loved to do that. Especially on vacations. I like to walk through them and try imagine what their lives were like.

I always found it fascinating too! My dad's whole side of the family does it. I remember several years ago talking to an elderly great uncle on his birthday and asking him what he did for the day. And he was so excited to tell me he went cemetery walking with a distant relative he'd communicated with but never met before. It cracked me up that it seemed like a shared hobby in the family outside of my immediate relatives.

[Anduin]

I used to enjoy walking around cemeteries, until after one visit, I had three relatives die surprisingly close together. Yes, two were very old and one was in bad health. Probably a coincidence, sure. But I'd rather not try it again.

[DoctorAtomic]

17 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Ah, memories.....

No one put their testicles all over me when I was there. 

[proserpina65]

On 5/15/2023 at 9:23 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

When I was in Paris you could see it from everywhere, and all the French people would say 'how you say, English...' when they wanted to ask me something and laughed like 'hohn hohn hohn'. 

 

Not every hotel room in Paris is facing the direction of the Eiffel Tower.  I couldn't see it from mine on the Left Bank.  My window only had a view of the building across the narrow street on which the hotel was located.  Definitely less scenic, but more affordable as a result.

Edited May 17, 2023 by proserpina65

[DoctorAtomic]

You just didn't look in the right place. 

[ABay]

Yes, your mistake was looking in real life instead of on TV.

[DoctorAtomic]

I am most pleased to inform the group that I went to the farmers market this morning and purchased a baguette. You all can be rest assured that it was sticking out of my bag in the most whimsical manner.

While the market was on the river, there was no Eiffel tower. Alas. 

[EtheltoTillie]

On 4/11/2023 at 10:38 AM, Raja said:

I don't think Three's Company works in a Grand Misunderstood premise because the grand premise is that Mr. Roper would not accept that a straight man would live in that situation without getting "benefits" on occasion no matter what Jack said. Being the 70s coming out was just becoming accepted 

But the premise was so stupid, because it wasn't a college dorm.  It was based on the idea that the landlord would be controlling the morals of the tenants, which wouldn't happen in those times.  That's shades of those olden times when people had to pretend to be married to check into a hotel. 

[Shannon L.]

4 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

But the premise was so stupid, because it wasn't a college dorm.  It was based on the idea that the landlord would be controlling the morals of the tenants, which wouldn't happen in those times.  That's shades of those olden times when people had to pretend to be married to check into a hotel. 

Maybe.  It's certainly wasn't as common in those times, but even today, there are places where it's really difficult for a man and a woman who aren't at least engaged to get an apartment together.  I know because our daughter, who just graduated college in small city in Utah, had a hard time finding people who would rent to her and her male friend. At one point, they were even thinking of buying her an engagement ring.  But, they finally found someone, who, with a lot of begging, agreed to rent to them. She had college friends in the same situation.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Shannon L.

[Blergh]

5 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

But the premise was so stupid, because it wasn't a college dorm.  It was based on the idea that the landlord would be controlling the morals of the tenants, which wouldn't happen in those times.  That's shades of those olden times when people had to pretend to be married to check into a hotel. 

During the 1970's,a  female friend of my family had a hard time checking into a motel solo  for the sole purposes of cleaning herself up and getting some sleep  while on  a road trip(and, it needs to be said, that anyone who's ever met her in person would know that . .. turning tricks wouldn't  remotely have  been her cup of tea) so it's not entirely unbelievable to me.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Blergh

[DoctorAtomic]

Even in the late 80s/early 90s, there were plenty of places where mixed renting was a deal. The first time I saw it was the norm was when I was at Berkeley and that was 1999. Maybe in the late 70s LA probably did have some mixed, but most of the USA, no. On the show, it was just for the landlord; everyone else was fine. 

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Maybe.  It's certainly wasn't as common in those times, but even today, there are places where it's really difficult for a man and a woman who aren't at least engaged to get an apartment together.  I know because our daughter, who just graduated college in small city in Utah, had a hard time finding people who would rent to her and her male friend. At one point, they were even thinking of buying her an engagement ring.  But, they finally found someone, who, with a lot of begging, agreed to rent to them. She had college friends in the same situation.

This is a real thing where there is Mormon influence, especially near BYU.  I have read that if a landlord wants to rent to BYU students, they have to agree to the chastity standards even for non-BYU students, or they can lose their status. The landlords are probably Mormons themselves.   BYU has a long reach.  I have an interest in cults and other extreme religions, so I've learned these various customs.  

[Annber03]

That sounds...really creepy. Wow. 

[Ohiopirate02]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

That sounds...really creepy. Wow. 

BYU's honor code for students is a doozy to put it mildly.  It forces students to actively spy on other students.  

[supposebly]

12 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

The first time I saw it was the norm was when I was at Berkeley and that was 1999.

Wow! I never realized that Germany would be so much more progressive than the US back then. I lived in a mixed residence (there actually weren't any gender-separated ones by the time I started university in 1988 as far as I know) and I had no problem renting an apartment with my boyfriend from a nice old lady who also lived in the building. That this could be an issue didn't even occur to us in 1991! And this was the southern parts of Germany, traditionally more conservative than the rest of the country.

I did have trouble renting from a place because a woman thought I was Turkish when she saw me walking up the street to come see the place, so racism was (and likely still is) a problem but my gender or my chastity was not.

Edited May 26, 2023 by supposebly

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Wow! I never realized that Germany would be so much more progressive than the US back then. I lived in a mixed residence (there actually weren't any gender-separated ones by the time I started university in 1988 as far as I know) and I had no problem renting an apartment with my boyfriend from a nice old lady who also lived in the building. That this could be an issue didn't even occur to us in 1991! And this was the southern parts of Germany, traditionally more conservative than the rest of the country.

I did have trouble renting from a place because a woman thought I was Turkish when she saw me walking up the street to come see the place, so racism was (and likely still is) a problem but my gender or my chastity was not.

We are talking about sexual issues and Mr Roper protecting the honor of his two female tenants. Prostitution was legal in more of Germany than Nevada at that time period 

[Bethany]

Three's Company was based on the British sitcom "Man About the House".  Was there a similar issue in England in the '70s with regard to an unmarried man sharing living quarters with women?   Looking it up on wikipedia the claim was made that it was considered "daring" for the time.  

[DrSpaceman73]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:48 PM, Blergh said:

But what's often funnier is how often a show will display a shot of the Eiffel Tower- and immediately underneath the Tower itself  there will be a large illustrated title reading 'Paris, France' or just 'Paris'- as if the viewers at home might have thought the location had changed to the Kings Island Amusement Park outside Cincinatti, Ohio!

That would be funny if someone were in Cincinnati and had a view of their eifel tower.  I know it's smaller and hard to see outside the park but still. Wonder if any show has ever done that. 

[DoctorAtomic]

15 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

This is a real thing where there is Mormon influence, especially near BYU.

So the 50% of mormons deep in the closet can live together and get it on. Can confirm. They also all go out to Salt Lake on Thursdays and rage. 

3 hours ago, supposebly said:

Wow! I never realized that Germany would be so much more progressive than the US back then.

There weren't any rules when I was in undergrad, but it just wasn't common. In fact, when I was looking for apartments (way cheaper than dorms) my mother actually said it was ok to live with my female friends. I just don't recall any mixed roommates. But a lot of the situation were fraternity/sorority bros/sis living together because it was like 75% greek. So it makes sense you're going to tend to live with them since you known them for a couple of years. 

 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 5/26/2023 at 10:46 AM, Raja said:

We are talking about sexual issues and Mr Roper protecting the honor of his two female tenants.

Is that what was about? I was a small kid when I watched that show, but even looking back now I always thought it was more about protecting the reputation of his building. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Kel Varnsen

[Raja]

6 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Is that what was about? I was a small kind when I watched that show, but even looking back now I always thought it was more about protecting the reputation of his building. 

Could have been. At that time the LGBT were just becoming accepted as good guy characters. Protecting Janet snd Chrissy or all the other tenants from folks thinking that they lived in a swingers community wasn't much different 

[Mabinogia]

I think the point was that Roper was "old fashioned". It was his building and he could choose who to rent to. The rent was probably cheaper than other places and he particularly didn't want sexy unmarried shenanigans going on so they pretended Jack was gay.

Honestly I'm surprise that didn't bother Roper more since he was kind of straight laced and being gay didn't quite fit in with his view of things, but then, it's a sitcom, it was just meant to be silly not actually make sense. I don't think it was necessarily meant to reflect that it was hard for single opposite sex non-couples to find rents, just that this particular trio wanted this particular rental and this particular landlord didn't want unmarrieds living under his roof. 

 

[DoctorAtomic]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Honestly I'm surprise that didn't bother Roper more since he was kind of straight laced and being gay didn't quite fit in with his view of things, but then, it's a sitcom, it was just meant to be silly not actually make sense.

Also being young when it was on, and not young now, I do wonder if the point of the show was to underscore the hypocrisy. Mrs. Roper is a horny cougar before there were cougars, and Larry was a typical player of the time. Jack was actually more protective of the roomies iirc. Except that one time Jack's balls flopped out his short, but it was the 70s. 

I liken it to when you see memes of "Archie Bunker would never be able to get away with saying all that today." Well, no, the point was that he wasn't getting away with saying those things then either. So Jack has to pretend to be gay, when Larry is clearly predatory, and it's ok for Mrs. Roper to force herself on her husband without his consent. 

Also way more pratfalls in the 70s. 

The premise of Jack being gay wasn't really a plot in every episode anyway. 

[Danielg342]

6 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I liken it to when you see memes of "Archie Bunker would never be able to get away with saying all that today." Well, no, the point was that he wasn't getting away with saying those things then either.

The snarky side of me would respond with, "well, Peter Griffin is on TV, so of course Archie Bunker could still be on TV!"

More seriously, though, I think those memes both highlight and miss the point. They miss because they misrepresent who the character of Archie Bunker was. Yes, Bunker was an unabashed racist, misogynist and discriminatory bigot, but the character was more than just a guy who spewed some provocative viewpoints.

He was a product of his time, and his viewpoints were part of who he was and who he represented. This is the part where the memes have it right, because the conditions that created Archie Bunker, arguably, do not exist today. Archie represented a time when the fundamentals of society were changing and there a lot of people who were like Archie who struggled to come to terms with that. Today, I think society pretty much agrees on the fundamentals- we just quibble about the details.

So there's a question about whether or not an Archie type would work today, but it's got nothing to do with the fact he got to say a lot of "bad things". The fact is, Archie's views were part of a carefully crafted character that resonated with a lot of people at the time who related to him, a situation that, arguably, does not exist today.

Today an Archie type would work better if he was someone who got "cancelled", because he said or did something that he did not think was offensive but others thought otherwise. In other words, today you would have an Archie who at least realizes that racism, misogyny, homophobia and other kinds of discrimination and bigotry are wrong- he would just argue about what would actually qualify as bigotry and would try his best to defend behaviour others interpreted in that light.

You would not have the old Archie who would openly wonder why anyone would think racism is wrong, because today pretty much everyone agrees racism is wrong. We just disagree with what qualifies as racism.

In short, the memes that moan that Archie got away with things that can't be said today miss the point. The things Archie said were part of a character that represented his time, a time that is not now. Today, if you wanted to write a character who is in the similar vein as Archie, you would have to write him differently to make him fit in with how people think today. Meaning you could still have someone who says offensive things- but they would be said under themes and contexts that resonate today (e.g. "cancel culture"), not as they were in the 1970s.

[DoctorAtomic]

That's more of a criticism of cancel culture going too far than it is about a character like Archie who was a product of their time. Because what is a product of the times now? Like you said, you can't have them be racist because everyone knows it's wrong. 

As dumb as Peter Griffin is, you have to say he's basically a liberal. 

It's one thing for a character to not really get why people have pronouns, but everyone generally grasps making fun of it isn't right. 

I was saying people who say Archie Bunker couldn't say all that today just want to say hurtful and offensive things without consequences. That never happened because the family was arguing all the time. 

 

[Kel Varnsen]

20 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

It's one thing for a character to not really get why people have pronouns, but everyone generally grasps making fun of it isn't right. 

Isn't Archie Bunker all satire though? Viewers aren't supposed to be laughing along with him, they are supposed to be laughing at how much of an asshole he is. A modern day version would be like if they made a sitcom along the lines of The Colbert Report.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Isn't Archie Bunker all satire though? Viewers aren't supposed to be laughing along with him, they are supposed to be laughing at how much of an asshole he is. A modern day version would be like if they made a sitcom along the lines of The Colbert Report.

Since All In The Family had several spinoffs - The Jeffersons, Maude, Good Times - it was both satire and a commentary on the changing times. The closest version I can think of right now would be Jay Pritchett from Modern Family, and even that isn't an exact match.

[kathyk24]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's more of a criticism of cancel culture going too far than it is about a character like Archie who was a product of their time. Because what is a product of the times now? Like you said, you can't have them be racist because everyone knows it's wrong. 

As dumb as Peter Griffin is, you have to say he's basically a liberal. 

It's one thing for a character to not really get why people have pronouns, but everyone generally grasps making fun of it isn't right. 

I was saying people who say Archie Bunker couldn't say all that today just want to say hurtful and offensive things without consequences. That never happened because the family was arguing all the time. 

 

Peter Griffin isn't a liberal. A liberal would treat his daughter much better than he treats Meg. A liberal would be disgusted by Quagmire not be his best friend.

[Danielg342]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

As dumb as Peter Griffin is, you have to say he's basically a liberal. 

Mileage will vary but I think of Family Guy as a poor imitator of All In The Family, hence my poor attempt at a joke.

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I was saying people who say Archie Bunker couldn't say all that today just want to say hurtful and offensive things without consequences. That never happened because the family was arguing all the time. 

I posted what I did before I went to bed, so maybe a few things didn't come out right. I basically agree with on this. I'm also adding that those who moan about Archie Bunker supposedly getting away with what he did and said don't realize that what Archie did and said was part of a carefully constructed character who represented a moment in time. A moment that does not exist today.

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

It's one thing for a character to not really get why people have pronouns, but everyone generally grasps making fun of it isn't right. 

I would disagree, generally, on that.

I don't believe, straight up, you could have a character who simply makes fun of a non-binary person because that person's pronouns are "xir/xe".

I do believe you could have an episode where one character genuinely forgets the non-binary person's pronouns and, in a misunderstanding blown out of proportion, the non-binary person flies into an outrage before realizing the other person really didn't mean any harm. The offending party could have a subplot in that same episode where he wonders where xir's anger comes from and "what's so special about being called 'xir' anyway?" before he realizes pronouns are important and he should do better to get them right.

That kind of thing is very topical for today.

Black-ish, for another, had an episode where a protest about representation among dolls went off the rails and where the main character had to come to terms with his own subtle inherent racism ("beige rage" if I recall it correctly). Maybe it only works because it's Black-ish but the episode highlighted the limits of outrage culture as well as telling people that they may have problematic tendencies that they perhaps don't realize.

Further, I'm with @Kel Varnsen that an Archie type nowadays could be also along the lines of a sitcom version of The Colbert Report.

Heck, I'd go even further. You could have a show about a Stephen Colbert type character named John Smith who has a show, "The Smith Show", on a FOX News-type network called "The Howler" (as their parent company is the Coyote Network). Smith's show isn't just cable's most watched show but also TV's most watched show, with his related podcast also topping the charts.

However, due to his popularity, Smith likes to take potshots at his employer and, one day, when The Howler gets a new President, his employer has enough so they fire Smith. Smith's opponents- including those at the CNN-type network, the Public News Network- celebrate the event while Smith is stunned, left to pick up the pieces.

A twist then emerges in the tale where PNN decides to hire Smith, because PNN puts profits over principle. They sell the decision by publicly stating Smith is "misunderstood" and that they believe they can "change" Smith, along with tough sounding language like "he's got a short leash", but the move is still met with the cynicism it deserves.

Smith would start as a "fish out of water" having to come to terms with his new environment, but, over time, he'd learn to fit in and accept his new reality. In doing so, he'd admit that some of the things he said on The Howler he doesn't actually believe, and he comes to find his experience at PNN to be freeing, since he can state his mind more than he could before.

In the end, you wouldn't necessarily have a character who completely transitions and moves all the way across the political spectrum...but you'd have someone who moderates his views and maybe comes to see the issues of political extremism on both sides of the ledger.

Maybe once he reaches that point he leaves PNN to strike on his own, becoming a voice to moderates who wish politicians would spend more time trying to work things out instead of throwing around the blame game and sniping at each other.

OK, maybe that's a bit wishy-washy...but, as I said before, an Archie type only works if you fit it in the right context. Since the context is different today, you have to adjust accordingly, and I believe it can be done.

[DoctorAtomic]

30 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

I do believe you could have an episode where one character genuinely forgets the non-binary person's pronouns and, in a misunderstanding blown out of proportion, the non-binary person flies into an outrage before realizing the other person really didn't mean any harm.

That's still really a criticism on cancel culture though vs a modern Archie Bunker. Maybe that's what a postmodern All in the Family would be. 

I don't think the show was satire per se because Archie and Meathead really got into it with the current issues. Their arguments were played straight. 

33 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

In doing so, he'd admit that some of the things he said on The Howler he doesn't actually believe, and he comes to find his experience at PNN to be freeing, since he can state his mind more than he could before.

That's probably of the times for these times. We have clear evidence that this happened irl. 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think the show was satire per se because Archie and Meathead really got into it with the current issues. Their arguments were played straight. 

There are also a shocking number of people out there who think Archie was just telling it like it is. These people aren't on discussion boards talking about TV but they were out there when it aired and they're out there now. 

Personally I can't stand the show because I find the characters, with the exception of Edith, to be absolutely insufferable. I enjoy drama llamas on TV as a general rule, but that show to me is like voluntarily signing up for the same vibe as watching your distant family be assholes to each other during Thanksgiving. No thanks. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

4 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

 I don't think the show was satire per se because Archie and Meathead really got into it with the current issues. Their arguments were played straight.

There's some argument to be made that Mike was only quieter in his sexism and his expectations as far as a woman's role in marriage went, that for as often as he criticized Archie for his wrong-headed beliefs he was willing to live in the man's house rent free and eat his food without paying for much of anything while he focused on his education. Mike too was a product of his era, the 'enlightened' man who could be just as bullish as his father in law, it was simply more subtle.

[DoctorAtomic]

Oh, Meathead got into it with Gloria plenty of times on "tradional" roles of marriage for sure. 

Mostly the show in the beginning was Meathead and Archie arguing the issues of the day. 

48 minutes ago, Zella said:

There are also a shocking number of people out there who think Archie was just telling it like it is.

That was my original impetus for the discussion. They're saying Archie was telling it like it is, but the point of the show was to highlight that this wasn't accepted anymore, and that was the early 70s.

[Zella]

21 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

the point of the show was to highlight that this wasn't accepted anymore, and that was the early 70s.

I realize that is what the show intends, but I also think it completely flies over the head of a not insignificant number of viewers, then and now, because a lot of people are hateful assholes. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Zella

[Danielg342]

I realize I don't have the luxury to be able to view All In The Family in its original context, since the show literally ran before I was born (apologies to everyone who now feels old because of that statement). I've seen some episodes and read about it where I can, but I can only understand it through the lens of a modern man whose only understanding of AITF's time is from what I have learned about it, which will always be inferior to those who actually experienced it in its original timeframe.

Anyway, my understanding of AITF and Archie Bunker in particular is that Archie is a man who feels that society and culture has passed him by and he struggles to fit in with how the times are at his point in life.

In the 1970s, that struggle is defined as realizing that racism and sexism, among other things, are actually wrong.

Today, I think the struggle is about coming to grips with cancel culture and navigating that minefield, since- as I said before- we mostly now agree about the basics of what is right and wrong, we just quibble about the details.

I see this in a two-pronged approach.

One, I find cancel culture can get quite random and you never know who will get offended by what and how deeply they'll be offended by it. This creates an environment where everyone is hyper-sensitive to anything that could be remotely offensive.

Secondly, I think society struggles with the idea that most people are good natured and never intend to cause harm but sometimes people slip up. This is related to the first point, since there is a lot of confusion about what is and isn't considered "offensive".

No one wants to "cross the line" but they have no idea how they can accomplish that when no one knows where the line actually is.

So I think of a modern Archie in that context. Someone who, ironically, wishes it was the 1970s because he believes back then it was easier not to "cross the line" than it is now.

I also intended to craft a character that could grow and develop, not just for the obvious reason where that kind of character is more interesting than one who does not grow and develop but also because I understand Archie himself mellowed as AITF soldiered on. He might not have completely given up his racist viewpoints but he did somewhat become more accepting of other races as the series moved on.

Which is why I think a modern Archie is someone who "made a mistake" and thus has to come to terms with that. He would start off being angry and defiant, not believing he did anything wrong but he'd eventually realize that he did make a mistake and this show of remorse is what opens the door for an eventual re-acceptance back into society.

Because today people are not concerned about society now telling them what used to be "okay" isn't okay anymore. Today people are more worried about making sure what they are doing is "okay" and are worried about slipping up and not fulfilling that standard.

So any show that makes social commentary- as AITF did- would have to comment on that.

[Irlandesa]

I don't agree that Archie would somehow be an anachronism were the show to be rebooted today.  I know people like him exist.    I hear people talk about their awkward holidays because of them.  Heck, turn on the news.  They're there.

And while these people do fear cancel culture, it's not the sometimes arbitrary aspect of cancel culture they fear; it's the consequence culture of being called out on their racism, homophobia, misogyny...etc.   They're the group that perfected the art of acting like being called a racist is worse than the racist words and actions they perpetuate.  

Archie Bunker worked because Norman Lear wrote him. Another talented writer could do a modern version today.  The Archie Bunker of today would agree that racism is bad but he likely wouldn't agree that what he does is racist. 

 

[DoctorAtomic]

The show is on FreeVee I think. I've watched up to season 3.

16 hours ago, Zella said:

 

 

16 hours ago, Zella said:

I realize that is what the show intends, but I also think it completely flies over the head of a not insignificant number of viewers, then and now, because a lot of people are hateful assholes. 

That's my original point. People say now that Archie could never say those things today, but they're saying that because they want to say them, and completely missed the point of the show. 

 

[Annber03]

15 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's my original point. People say now that Archie could never say those things today, but they're saying that because they want to say them, and completely missed the point of the show. 

Yes. This. Not to get too into the political weeds, but if Archie Bunker were to exist as a character today, you could hazard a pretty safe guess as to the kinds of specific people he would support, and the viewers who would be the most upset about/offended by the show would be those who shared Archie's worldview and didn't understand why the other characters were being so "mean" to him about his opinions. 

Basically, if Lear's shows came out today, there'd be a section of people who'd complain that they were "too woke".