All Episodes Talk: Breadstix

[tom87]

And I never claimed it was anything but to  placate him.  It was still a good plan.  Why is that hard to understand?

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[Ceeg]

I also very strongly object to "Surely enough Kurt and Kurt's fans had no problem when Santana did it to Rachel but wanted Rachel crucified for doing it to Kurt."

First of all: wow, strongly generalizing a fandom there, and not even true in my case (and not for many other Kurtsies I know). Just because Kurt was involved in one of these incidents has very little to do with my opinion on both situations, plus simply calling "BIAS!" to undermine other posters' opinion can work both ways. Just saying.

 

 

Just like how everyone who enjoyed or found the Santana rant in 603 funny has to be a stan or a shipper?

 

I think that, as in real life, characters value their own happiness and well-being and future and ambition above their friends'. Rachel has to live her own life.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ceeg

[fakeempress]

And I never claimed it was anything but to  placate him.  It was still a good plan.  Why is that hard to understand?

Because what you take as just a good plan, wasn't just that imo. In the context of what went on, it was again self-serving, which Glorfindel also pointed out exactly how. It was Rachel managing the fallout, but she created the fallout in the first place. But if you consider the good plan to be the main takeaway from the incident, fine. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[Glorfindel]

Just like how everyone who enjoyed or found the Santana rant in 603 funny has to be a stan or a shipper?

Never said or implied that. Don't put words in my mouth.

[SevenStars]

And I never claimed it was anything but to  placate him.  It was still a good plan.  Why is that hard to understand?

 

I think people have a problem with "it was a good plan" because it is being use to excuse Rachel's bad handling of the situation and also if Kurt wanted to be VP, he wouldn't have run for President. So Rachel saying that to him was condescending and made a bad situation worst.

 

To me, when Rachel said she was sorry and decided to drop out of the race, that was enough to show that she realized that the way she handled the situation was wrong and was sorry for that. So I hated that the writers made her stuffed the stupid ballot box. There was no reason for Rachel to do that.

[Ceeg]

Never said or implied that. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Idk, I think the implication is there (from page 6 of the episode discussion thread):

 

 

But to be honest: I'm more disappointed in part of Glee's fandom, who apparently either have become so blasé about Glee's insults that they just shrug their shoulders now, or are more invested in their own fave and/or OTP that they don't care and even celebrate when another gay character gets kicked in the guts for 2 minutes.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ceeg

[tom87]

I think people have a problem with "it was a good plan" because it is being use to excuse Rachel's bad handling of the situation and also if Kurt wanted to be VP, he wouldn't have run for President. So Rachel saying that to him was condescending and made a bad situation worst.

 

To me, when Rachel said she was sorry and decided to drop out of the race, that was enough to show that she realized that the way she handled the situation was wrong and was sorry for that. So I hated that the writers made her stuffed the stupid ballot box. There was no reason for Rachel to do that.

But I am not using it as an excuse.  If peole think that it is thier own twist not my interntion since I have said Rachel was wrong to go behind his back and I have said she did it to placate him.  I just think it was a good idea.  It would have given them both a chance to have it on their resumes.  

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[Glorfindel]

Idk, I think the implication is there (from page 6 of the episode discussion thread):

You said "everyone" in your previous post, while the quote you took from the episode thread was that I said "either" people becoming blasé "or" being fans of Santana and/or their ships (and I wasn't even referring to only the Brittana ship but some Klaine shippers also).

 

That's not an implication, that's exactly how I said it.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Glorfindel

[Ceeg]

I remember back in season 3, when Rachel wanted to forgo her plans to move to New York after graduation, so that Finn could figure out what his dream was. And everyone, including me, was pissed about it, because the Rachel Berry we knew would never do that. So, I don't quite understand how it's wrong to postpone her dream for Finn, but it's also wrong to not strive for her dream in anyway she knows how.

 

You said "everyone" in your previous post, while the quote you took from the episode thread was that I said "either" people becoming blasé "or" being fans of Santana and/or their ships (and I wasn't even referring to only the Brittana ship but some Klaine shippers also).

 

That's not an implication, that's exactly how I said it.

And that is also a complete generalization. Since that post now has over 100k notes on tumblr, I doubt all 100k of those people are shippers or stans or are blase about offensive material. I know off the top of my head, several people who thought it was funny, and who are neither shippers or stans or are desensitized to "offensive" material. So, generalizations about how you perceive people to react can go both ways.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ceeg

[SevenStars]

But I am not using it as an excuse

 

I   think Rachel was wrong to go behind his back and I have said she id it to placate him.  I just think it was a good idea.  It would have given them both a chance to have it on their resumes.  

 

Rachel was using it as an excuse and I think when people see other people used it in this argument on whether the way Rachel handled the situation was right or not, people assume those posters are using it in the same manner. 

 

I think we can only know if it was a good idea or not, if we knew that him being VP would mean anything to the school. Because depending on what duties someone in the VP position have, it could either help their CV or not. If there are no clear ideas of what he did as VP, there wouldn't be anyway for the school to know that being a VP wasn't anything more than a glorified title. But being president, there is no question that would have boost either ones CV.  So it being a good plan is debatable. 

I remember back in season 3, when Rachel wanted to forgo her plans to move to New York after graduation, so that Finn could figure out what his dream was. And everyone, including me, was pissed about it, because the Rachel Berry we knew would never do that. So, I don't quite understand how it's wrong to postpone her dream for Finn, but it's also wrong to not strive for her dream in anyway she knows how.

 

No one is saying Rachel doesn't have a right to strive for her dream or is wrong for it but if she is going to call someone her BFF and expect them to act as her friend, then the least she can do is honor this friendship in the way she handled situations that calls for her to compete against them. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by SevenStars

[tom87]

Well if we want to debate plans.  How about the plan Kurt picked to try to win an election in  school that he has never been popular  in.   :)

 

With all the extracurricular activities the school has been shown to have he could have joined 10 others that he was assured to get in.

 

But then we wouldn't have had another chance for Rachel to  be wrong.  

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[Glorfindel]

And that is also a complete generalization. Since that post now has over 100k notes on tumblr, I doubt all 100k of those people are shippers or stans or are blase about offensive material. I know off the top of my head, several people who thought it was funny, and who are neither shippers or stans or are desensitized to "offensive" material. So, generalizations about how you perceive people to react can go both ways.

Never said or implied that either. I am very careful to never generalize entire fandoms in comments, and always put words in my post like "some", "plenty", or in this case "a part" (of Glee's fandom). Do I have to spell out each and every possible motivation for people doing something if I specificly mention it's not all of them?

You're the one who's taking everything I say as total and absolute.

 

I also didn't even mention that 100k tumblr post you now bring up in my post you took that quote from.

 

I'm sure many of those 100k people reblogging that scene had other motivations to do so than the ones I mentioned, if only because they found that scene genuinely funny without thinking too much about it or just for the way it was worded or delivered. Or maybe they didn't even know the context or the characters in the show, as I personally doubt there are still that many Glee fans actively blogging about Glee online, especially the new episodes.

 

And I said "bias" can go both ways, not "generalizations", although in principle that's true as well.

[indeed]

Well if we want to debate plans. How about the plan Kurt picked to try to win an election in school that he has never been popular in. :)

True, he was hardly popular, but at the time he didn't really have any competition (Rachel and Brittany joined the race after, and wasn't there like only one other person at the debate--I don't remember), so he probably figured he had a decent shot. And being class president would probably be considered more impressive to colleges than joining a handful of other activities (doesn't mean he still shouldn't have joined other things). Plus, he really seemed to be interested in the actual work involved with being on the student council and making changes.

But then we wouldn't have had another chance for Rachel to be wrong.

That's hardly Kurt's fault. He had an arc in season 3 of being a loser to ratchet up the angst about him getting into NYADA. Blame the writers for multi-tasking. ;) Edited January 21, 2015 by indeed

[tom87]

True, he was hardly popular, but at the time he didn't really have any competition (Rachel and Brittany joined the race after, and wasn't there like only one other person at the debate--I don't remember), so he probably figured he had a decent shot. And being class president would probably be considered more impressive to colleges than joining a handful of other activities (doesn't mean he still shouldn't have joined other things). Plus, he really seemed to be interested in the actual work involved with being on the student council and making changes.

The hockey guy was in the race.   Ended up dropping out got hurt or something.

 

I was joking you know.

[fakeempress]

Well if we want to debate plans.  How about the plan Kurt picked to try to win an election in  school that he has never been popular  in.   :)

 

With all the extracurricular activities the school has been shown to have he could have joined 10 others that he was assured to get in.

 

But then we wouldn't have had another chance for Rachel to  be wrong.  

Exactly the same argument can be made about Rachel. Why did Rachel think she can win an election in a school she was never popular in, and on a slate with someone as you say also never popular? Why didn't Rachel remember the many clubs she was in (also canon as Kurt's football and cheerleading), if they would make such a difference in Kurt's case?  

[Glorfindel]

It's hard to decide on Glee whether or when the ND kids are/were popular or not, because it seemed to differ with every episode, depending on RIB needing them to be underdogs or cheered at for the storyline of the moment.

Sometimes their popularity/non-popularity was even contradicted in the same episode.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Glorfindel

[indeed]

I was joking you know.

Yes, I'm aware. Still thought it could use a reply.

[tom87]

Hahaha  even joking about Kurt  MAYBE not having a good plan gets people defending him. .

 

Sorry .  Kurt good, me and Rachel bad.   (I kid).

[indeed]

Wasn't really defending him, just trying to explain how it wasn't a completely idiotic move on his part. Besides, I think I already pointed out in an earlier post that he wasn't Mr. Popular with regards to the election.

It's hard to decide on Glee whether or when the ND kids are/were popular or not, because it seemed to differ with every episode, depending on RIB needing them to be underdogs or cheered at for the storyline of the moment.

Or feeling the need for another Slushie moment.

[dizzyizzy01]

The two situations (Presidency and understudy) are imo different, primarily because Santana never went directly for Rachel's position, whereas Rachel knew she was going for the same position Kurt wanted,even though she had every right to do so (but so had Santana).

 

I don't get the idea that understudies are all secretly hoping and scheming that the lead breaks a leg so they can take over their job, that's not how it works in rl and quite unfair to the very hard and underappreciated job of being an understudy. On the contrary: an understudy usually helps the lead by taking some stress and responsibility off their shoulders. Rachel should have been mature and educated enough to understand that, but she was strongly against having an understudy altogether in the first place, whether it was Santana or not.

I admit her understudy being Santana made it worse for Rachel because of her insecurities and their past together, but in the end Santana actually came through for her and replaced her when it was Rachel's own fault she couldn't perform.

Santana going behind Rachel's back was definitely wrong, (read that well: I, a Kurtsie, said that Santana was wrong too in the understudy fight) but imo that's a completely different issue from Rachel being so protective about Fanny Brice in the first place, not wanting an understudy and certainly not a latina (also, hypocrite much after she was Maria in WSS?). But then that whole fight escalated in Santana ripping into Rachel and Rachel slapping her and things got severely muddled, but imo that's also a whole different issue and discussion.

 

It's worth noticing that in both instances it was Rachel being insecure that gave her the motivation for her actions and reactions. Nothing wrong with that, as nothing is simply black and white, right or wrong, and every character has their own motivations.

What I find amusing in all of this is that there are now multilple post stretching over several pages on 2 different threads that partly began because I used the word "backstabbing", when I fairly quickly admitted afterwards that it was too strongly worded, mea culpa, and tried to explain what I really meant (that Rachel does not remember favors done to her at moments when she really should count to 10 and remember who were there for her at other times).

But when posters who were commenting on how Santana's vicious rant in 6x03 was too strongly worded and character bashing they were told that they were overreacting, repeating arguments, and the discussion about it was dragging on for too long. But of course noone was biased in that discussion, so it's different. Lol.

 

Santana's exact words in Trio "It's all a part of my master plan to psyche out Berry so I can play Fanny Brice."  Santana is not a nice person when it comes to something she wants.  She's pretty much the absolute worst, and with her history with Rachel, doing something behind her back, what do you expect Rachel to feel?  Add on top what she said to Rachel when Rachel asked "why did you not tell be before?"  Rachel never asked "why did you audition?"  She asked "why didn't you tell me?".  

 

Yes, you recounted the backstabbing comment after you made a series of purposely skewed comments about Rachel, which started this discussion, but honestly, a lot people here don't seem understand what backstabbing is? You have to have an intention to deceive, which is what Kurt did in that makeover episode.  Rachel never intended to deceive Kurt, Santana, or anyone else.  She's made mistakes like any other character, but she's not intentionally malicious.  Almost every other character in this discussion has been intentionally malicious.

Edited January 21, 2015 by dizzyizzy01

[jaytee1812]

You know what I never understood about Glee is surely the 'cool' kids joining Glee should've made it cool rather than making them uncool. They decide what's popular and everyone else follows.

[tom87]

Wasn't really defending him, just trying to explain how it wasn't a completely idiotic move on his part. Besides, I think I already pointed out in an earlier post that he wasn't Mr. Popular with regards to the election.

Or feeling the need for another Slushie moment.

You weren't the only one to respond even after I reiterated I was joking.  

[indeed]

Honestly, people here don't understand what backstabbing is do they? You have to have an intention to deceive, which is what Kurt did in that makeover episode. Rachel never intended to deceive Kurt, Santana, or anyone else. She's made mistakes like any other character, but she's not intentionally malicious.

One word : Sunshine. Three words: not a friend. Therefore, doesn't count.

You know what I never understood about Glee is surely the 'cool' kids joining Glee should've made it cool rather than making them uncool. They decide what's popular and everyone else follows.

I think that only goes so far. If it's something soooo uncool like glee club at McKinley apparently was, even the cool kids like quarterback and head cheerleader couldn't make it cool.

ETA:

You weren't the only one to respond even after I reiterated I was joking.

So? I realize that. Being one of the ones to pick up on your "good plan" comment and respond, I assumed I was in the mix, so I responded again. Edited January 21, 2015 by indeed

[jaytee1812]

I think that only goes so far. If it's something soooo uncool like glee club at McKinley apparently was, even the cool kids like quarterback and head cheerleader couldn't make it cool.

But why was glee so uncool. A lot of girls, especially cheerleaders, would also study dance. Glee's just singing too, what's the big difference. And if hot girls were joining guys would join for that reason.

Trivia: Harry Shum joined a dance group in high school because he liked a girl, and it became a career.

[dizzyizzy01]

Honestly, people here don't understand what backstabbing is do they? You have to have an intention to deceive, which is what Kurt did in that makeover episode. Rachel never intended to deceive Kurt, Santana, or anyone else. She's made mistakes like any other character, but she's not intentionally malicious.

One word : Sunshine. Three words: not a friend. Therefore, doesn't count.

 

The way people can defend Kurt for doing a shitty thing is kind of amazing.  He pretended to be a friend and intentionally messed with another person purely for his own amusement and to hurt the other person.  That seems pretty damn awful in my book.  And I caveat that I enjoyed that story line, but Kurt was clearly in the wrong here.

 

Fair point with Sunshine, I kind of forgot about her, but she was a bit of a throwaway character.  Although, I think sending someone to the wrong place for an audition isn't as cruel as pretending to be someone's friend and then doing something to intentionally hurt them.  

 

Anyway, I'll alter my statement to Rachel has never done anything intentionally shitty to the level of many of the other characters (Finn, Puck, Quinn etc.) and certainly not to the characters we're discussing right now (i.e., Kurt & Santana).

[indeed]

The way people can defend Kurt for doing a shitty thing is kind of amazing.

I also think a bad makeover is a bit blown out of proportion, but no, it wasn't a nice thing for Kurt to do. Kurt has his moments where he was a bit mischievous and calculating. I guess I'm a bad person for missing S1 Kurt.

The way people can defend Kurt for doing a shitty thing is kind of amazing. He pretended to be a friend and intentionally messed with another person purely for his own amusement and to hurt the other person.

Wasn't it more to do with viewing Rachel as a romantic rival? I don't think he did it for sh!ts and giggles, but to sabotage her chances with Finn ('cause he was a bit delusional he had a chance there). Not that that's any better.

the wrong place for an audition

Understatement. LOL Edited January 21, 2015 by indeed

[tom87]

I also think a bad makeover is a bit blown out of proportion, but no, it wasn't a nice thing for Kurt to do. Kurt has his moments where he was a bit mischievous and calculating. I guess I'm a bad person for missing S1 Kurt.

Wasn't it more to do with viewing Rachel as a romantic rival? I don't think he did it for sh!ts and giggles, but to sabotage her chances with Finn ('cause he was a bit delusional he had a chance there). Not that that's any better.

Understatement. LOL

What it was an inactive crack house.    Oh when glee was a dark comedy.

[caracas1914]

He pretended to be a friend and intentionally messed with another person purely for his own amusement

 

No, he was taking out a potential rival for Finn's attention.   Let's get his evil ways right...

Edited January 21, 2015 by caracas1914

[dizzyizzy01]

I also think a bad makeover is a bit blown out of proportion, but no, it wasn't a nice thing for Kurt to do. Kurt has his moments where he was a bit mischievous and calculating. I guess I'm a bad person for missing S1 Kurt.

Wasn't it more to do with viewing Rachel as a romantic rival? I don't think he did it for sh!ts and giggles, but to sabotage her chances with Finn ('cause he was a bit delusional he had a chance there). Not that that's any better.

Understatement. LOL

S1 Kurt was an interesting character.  I liked him.  It doesn't mean one can't recognize that he did an intentionally shitty thing to another character, which was kind of is the very definition of stabbing someone in the back.  Same thing with Santana, she was an interesting character, but she still did terrible things to other characters.

 

Well I guess mischievous and calculating is an understatement also.  He purposely tried to embarrass Rachel and deceived her into thinking they were friends.  He played on a vulnerability he knew she had.  That seems more than mischievous.  There was an underlying intent there to do some emotional harm to Rachel.

 

I can recognize Rachel has her faults.  She gets tunnel vision with her ambitions.  She makes questionable choices, but she comes through more often than not for her friends.  It often feels like people can't recognize that Kurt plays a part in the antagonistic history between Rachel and Kurt, and he did some intentionally crappy things to her, especially in the early seasons.  Rachel often has a lack of social grace.  Kurt is often a self-righteous ass.  These characters are ages 15-21(?) over the course of the show.  They screw up and make mistakes.  All of them.

No, he was taking out a potential rival for Finn's attention.   Let's get his evil ways right...

LOL.  Fine. The amusement part was a side effect.

[jaytee1812]

Hahaha most Lea fans did not project  that Marley was like Rachel.   Some Lea  fans and many other fans were  uninterested in Marley becasue she was boring.

 

People who say she was the new Rachel did not mean that literally but figuratively that she was being set up to be the new  female lead of that narrative.  But the rest were the bitchy cheerleader, the bad boy, the reluctant jock, the sassy black girl too close to other characters.

I never saw Jake like Puck, apart from being siblings. Jake was a loner, Puck was the most popular boy in school. They both seem to go through at lot of girlfriend but Jake settled when he got the girl he wanted (we'll ignore the racist trope for the moment). And Puck would never have been seen dead in a dance class.

I thought Kitty was deliberately a clone, she idolised Quinn. She was trying to be her.

Marley and Ryder never looked like copies to me, but that's just me.

Unique's whole characterisation was just offensive even if she wasn't like Mercedes.

[fakeempress]

 

The way people can defend Kurt for doing a shitty thing is kind of amazing.  He pretended to be a friend and intentionally messed with another person purely for his own amusement and to hurt the other person.  That seems pretty damn awful in my book.  And I caveat that I enjoyed that story line, but Kurt was clearly in the wrong here.

I for one wasn't defending him in the least for Season One. I don't consider to be defending to say that by the time the election story happened, their relationship had drastically changed and it's a different setup. It can be judged by its own merit, and not by what Kurt or Rachel did when they weren't friends. Compare like with like, so compare how Rachel and Kurt behaved to each other when they considered themselves to be real friends, both of them. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[Glorfindel]

The way people can defend Kurt for doing a shitty thing is kind of amazing.  He pretended to be a friend and intentionally messed with another person purely for his own amusement and to hurt the other person.  That seems pretty damn awful in my book.  And I caveat that I enjoyed that story line, but Kurt was clearly in the wrong here.

Yup, I'm a Kurtsie and totally agree.

These characters have all done shitty things to one another. That's why the show constantly trying to sell us that they're all still besties forever is laughable to me.

 

Fair point with Sunshine, I kind of forgot about her, but she was a bit of a throwaway character.  Although, I think sending someone to the wrong place for an audition isn't as cruel as pretending to be someone's friend and then doing something to intentionally hurt them.

Crack house, though not active, lol.

Rachel also paid Azimio and Karofsky $100,- to "brutally" (her words) slushy herself, Mercedes and Kurt in front of Sunshine.

 

I loved season 1 and part of season 2 for its snark and dark humor, and all the scheming and rivalry. No PSA's, no talk of soulmates, no forced friendhips.

So many things changed since then. If season 6 shows anything to me it's that although RIB brought everyone back to McKinley, reset some of the characters to their season 1 ways, repeat the old storylines (up to the point that they even almost verbatim redo old scenes) and are heavy leaning on the 'good ol'days' sentiment, it's just not the same anymore.

Imo it would have been better if they had just moved the show forwards, instead of backwards.

[SeanC]

I loved season 1 and part of season 2 for its snark and dark humor, and all the scheming and rivalry. No PSA's, no talk of soulmates, no forced friendhips..

Well, strictly speaking, I think season 1-2 had all of those things, just not as much (and with more and better jokes).

Edited January 21, 2015 by SeanC

[Glorfindel]

Well, strictly speaking, I think season 1-2 had all of those things, just not as much (and with more and better jokes).

True. Maybe I should have said that these things didn't take over the show back then, and weren't so obviously shoved down our throats.

And the jokes were definitely better then, or at least fresh.

[tom87]

I still think they actual did grow Kurt/Rachel friendship.  Starting with the little wave at the end of Hairgraphy, the lonely bit in duets,  Don't cry for me Argentina,  Sectionals and  Rachel's  little smile to get Kurt to smile,  to finally For Good  in NY.

 

It was actual more than many friendships got and it was kind of gradual with some bigger leaps to move it along. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[Glorfindel]

^I agree. The Hummelberry friendship was developed and slowly built up over a long period of time. That little wave they gave in Hairography is one of my favorite scenes on Glee. It said so much in a little gesture.

 

What I found forced about Hummelberry was the writers deliberately pitting them against each other several times, which sadly often resulted in one of them winning when the other lost. It brought so much bagage in their friendship but also in the fandom.

When realisticly they shouldn't be so much in direct competition with one another. Though they are both stubborn and ambitious people (so they would butt heads from time to time), I would have loved seeing them working together more, like in 3x01 (The Purple Piano Project) or sometimes in New York. That was actually one of the few things I liked in the last episode, 6x03: them finding the common ground in a little argument.

[tom87]

I thing it brought more baggage to the fandom then the friendship.  :)

 

Yeah sadly Rachel lost cause she always has to be wrong,  while Kurt gets to take the high road. :)

Edited January 21, 2015 by tom87

[Glorfindel]

^Totally agree with your first sentence.

 

As for the second one: just joking, right? Or else..... *grumbles*    ;)

Edited January 21, 2015 by Glorfindel

[indeed]

Or because, you know, he's better. (Kidding!)

[fakeempress]

^I agree. The Hummelberry friendship was developed and slowly built up over a long period of time. That little wave they gave in Hairography is one of my favorite scenes on Glee. It said so much in a little gesture.

 

What I found forced about Hummelberry was the writers deliberately pitting them against each other several times, which sadly often resulted in one of them winning when the other lost. It brought so much bagage in their friendship but also in the fandom.

When realisticly they shouldn't be so much in direct competition with one another. Though they are both stubborn and ambitious people (so they would butt heads from time to time), I would have loved seeing them working together more, like in 3x01 (The Purple Piano Project) or sometimes in New York. That was actually one of the few things I liked in the last episode, 6x03: them finding the common ground in a little argument.

I also think this was them done right, there was still squabbling but it wasn't confrontational and zero-sum as someone upthread said. The comedy was still there, based on their personalities, and because Chris and Lea have great comedic timing and reactions, but they weren't pitted against each other so that if one wins, the other will lose. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by fakeempress

[camussie]

My thoughts

• As I said last year Santana was wrong not to talk to Rachel before she tried out for the understudy for "Funny Girl."  Not to get her permission but rather to say this is happening and as your friend I didn't want you to be blindsided by it.  
• Rachel was wrong to not want an understudy at all.  Her attitude towards having one should have been the canary in the coal mine for the director and producers of "Funny Girl"  because it showed she wasn't mature nor professional enough to be lead in a Broadway production
• Rachel was wrong not to tell Kurt she was running for class president.  Again not to get his permission but rather as his friend to say this is happening and I didn't want you to be blindsided by it.
• Rachel saying Kurt could be her VP was not "a good plan."  It was a condescending as heck bone that Kurt was rightfully offended by.  It is similar to the way she wanted to share the lead in "West Side Story" with Mercedes - where she would get all the heavily attended performances while Mercedes would get the rest.  That rightfully was the last straw for Mercedes.  

Edited January 22, 2015 by camussie

[indeed]

I also think this was them done right, there was still squabbling but it wasn't confrontational and zero-sum as someone upthread said. The comedy was still there, based on their personalities, and because Chris and Lea have great comedic timing and reactions, but they weren't pitted against each other so that if one wins, the other will lose.

Although the people in the choir room old and new seemed a bit concerned when Hummelberry was out of alignment in the beginning. But co-directing with those two was bound to have some bumps in the road. Edited January 22, 2015 by indeed

[jaytee1812]

[*]Rachel saying Kurt could be her VP was not "a good plan."  It was a condescending as heck bone that Kurt was rightfully offended by.  It is similar to the way she wanted to share the lead in "West Side Story" with Mercedes - where she would get all the heavily attended performances while Mercedes would get the rest.  That rightfully was the last straw for Mercedes.  

I actually liked this for the character, I think it's very true to who Rachel is. She loves her friends, especially Kurt and Mercedes, and she wants them to get their dreams, but she would rather she didn't ever have to give something up for that to happen.

[camussie]

I agree both times it was consistent with Rachel's characterization but that doesn't mean it was magnanimous of her or a "good plan" for all involved.   Rachel offering in that manner was consistent with who she is.  Likewise Kurt and Mercedes responding with "you have got to be kidding me" was consistent with who they were and also with how most people would view her offer.  

[jaytee1812]

I agree both times it was consistent with Rachel's characterization but that doesn't mean it was magnanimous of her or a "good plan" for all involved.   Rachel offering in that manner was consistent with who she is.  Likewise Kurt and Mercedes responding with "you have got to be kidding me" was consistent with who they were and also with how most people would view her offer.

I always thought the people who deserve most criticism in the West Side Story storyline were Artie, Bieste and Emma. Bieste and Emma in particular were completely unprofessional in Kurt audition, they cast Mike and Puck wrongly. And they bottled it. They should've chosen between Mercedes and Rachel they put the onus on the girls which was out of order.

On the basis of West Side Story and Grease, Artie sucks as a director and can't cast for shit.

[dizzyizzy01]

 

My thoughts

• As I said last year Santana was wrong not to talk to Rachel before she tried out for the understudy for "Funny Girl."  Not to get her permission but rather to say this is happening and as your friend I didn't want you to be blindsided by it.  
• Rachel was wrong to not want an understudy at all.  Her attitude towards having one should have been the canary in the coal mine for the director and producers of "Funny Girl"  because it showed she wasn't mature nor professional enough to be lead in a Broadway production
• Rachel was wrong not to tell Kurt she was running for class president.  Again not to get his permission but rather as his friend to say this is happening and I didn't want you to be blindsided by it.
• Rachel saying Kurt could be her VP was not "a good plan."  It was a condescending as heck bone that Kurt was rightfully offended by.  It is similar to the way she wanted to share the lead in "West Side Story" with Mercedes - where she would get all the heavily attended performances while Mercedes would get the rest.  That rightfully was the last straw for Mercedes.  

 

Everyone forgets that despite Rachel not wanting an understudy, she was going to accept it.  She didn't like it, but she was fine with it in the end.  I think her fight with Santana was clearly about your first point and escalated from there.  Her argument with Santana starts with "why didn't you tell me you were auditioning" not "why are you auditioning for something I don't think is needed".  I think that's an important difference to give insight as to where Rachel's mindset was.

 

Ultimately Rachel shot herself in the foot with the Funny Girl story line, but I think that in how that fight started and escalated had mostly to do with Santana.

 

I don't really equate the WSS storyline and presidency run situations.  Everyone knew Rachel was going after the role of Maria, and Mercedes had the right to audition as well.  They were both open with that.  Like jtrattray said Artie/Emma/Bieste screwed up because they couldn't cast properly and couldn't make a decision on who they thought was better.  Why wouldn't anyone ask for the better performance slots for a role they really wanted and got cast for?  

[indeed]

Like jtrattray said Artie/Emma/Bieste screwed up because they couldn't cast properly and couldn't make a decision on who they thought was better.

Yes, the faculty judges/advisors (and didn't this issue go further up the chain?) shouldn't have been so wishy-washy and gotten the two in contention involved. But at least they didn't decide to go with the third choice like the principal did with valedictorian. Stooopid. Edited January 22, 2015 by indeed

[jaytee1812]

I never particularly thought either Rachel or Santana were right or wrong in the Funny Girl fight. I kinda liked that it brought out the worst in both of them, and they both suffered for it.

I never thought Rachel or Mercedes were wrong in West Side Story, although I wanted Mercedes to win. In terms of Glee it would've worked better for Rachel to lose at least once, and I think Mercedes would've been a better Maria.

The scene that really bugs me is Artie, Bieste and Emma talking about what a radical and unusual choice for Maria Mercedes would be. It was like every code word for black and plus size.

[camussie]

Why wouldn't anyone ask for the better performance slots for a role they really wanted and got cast for?

 

 

Conversely why would anybody accept that sort of compromise or even see it as a compromise?  Due to her ambition Rachel was clueless on how condescending her offer came across and Mercedes rightfully called her on it.  Now do I think the directors should have made a choice rather than leaving it up to Mercedes and Rachel? Absolutely.  They should have chosen one of the girls outright or at the very least assigned the performances themselves.  They were the ones most at fault which is why I didn't blame Mercedes for quitting.  That said I still don't fault Mercedes for scoffing at Rachel's performance sharing plan that really was a "I will take all of the big shows and you can take what is left over" plan.   Just like if Mercedes had made that same offer first I wouldn't have faulted Rachel for scoffing at it.  

 

Everyone forgets that despite Rachel not wanting an understudy, she was going to accept it.  She didn't like it, but she was fine with it in the end.

 

 

Not forgetting that at all.  She grudgingly accepted that the show needed an understudy but the fact that her first inclination was to throw a fit about having one was a huge indication she simply was neither mature nor professional enough to be a lead in Broadway show that had millions of dollars riding on it.  Real professionals don't just grudgingly accept that they need an understudy.  Rather they appreciate having them as a back-up.  

Edited January 22, 2015 by camussie

[dizzyizzy01]

Conversely why would anybody accept that sort of compromise or even see it as a compromise?  Due to her ambition Rachel was clueless on how condescending her offer came across and Mercedes rightfully called her on it.

 

 But Rachel's not in the wrong for doing it.  Mercedes rightfully didn't like it, but Rachel didn't do anything wrong.  Mercedes was also kind of awful when she whined about "why does everyone not want to hurt Rachel's feelings."  She was implying Rachel wasn't as good and it's a categorically untrue statement to say nobody tries to hurt Rachel's feelings.  Ignoring your own personal preference of who is better, Mercedes was being pretty condescending to Rachel as well.  I just don't think either of them were really wrong in these situation, and it's a false equivalency to try and compare the presidency stuff to the WSS stuff.

 

Not forgetting that at all.  She grudgingly accepted that the show needed an understudy but the fact that her first inclination was to threw a fit about having one was a huge indication she simply wasn't mature nor professional enough to be a lead in Broadway show that had millions of dollars riding on it.  Real professionals don't just grudgingly accept that they need an understudy.  Rather they appreciate having them as a back-up.

 

 

Rachel was wrong in the beginning but came around.  You don't give her credit for that.  Also, how do you compare real-life productions to Glee though?  They still proceeded without an understudy anyway after Santana dropped out.  Also, you don't audition for an understudy unless something had gone wrong that late in the production anyway.  The whole thing made little sense in real life so the real professional stuff is really hard to take into consideration.

 

I never particularly thought either Rachel or Santana were right or wrong in the Funny Girl fight. I kinda liked that it brought out the worst in both of them, and they both suffered for it.

 

 

I think Santana was in the wrong to start, and they both had a part in escalating it.  That fight in the dressing room is one of my favorite scenes ever though.  Rachel's Showgirls and Ghost Fanny line was pretty epic.

Edited January 22, 2015 by dizzyizzy01