All Episodes Talk: Breadstix

[Hana Chan]

grandemocha - What do you think happened in that office? That Rachel and Carmen had tea while Rachel juggled her office fixtures. Rachel said straight out that she had gone to NYADA to ask for her place in the school back. There was nothing that indicated that she didn't at least try to do that.

 

Yes, she was slacking off by devoting alot of her time to a professional Broadway production trying to make it be the best it could possibly be. How dare she have difficulty balancing her responsibilities.

 

 

What Rachel should have done (as many have pointed out before) was take a sabbatical from NAYDA so that she could focus on her show without jeopardizing her opportunity to return to school after her run if she chose to do so. It was Rachel's arrogance that she could manage both that got her into the position that she was neglecting her classwork and was flunking all of her classes. This is exactly how her conversation with Ms. Tibideaux went in Bash: 

 

Rachel: I thought that the appeal of NYADA was that we could explore other activities outside of the school.

Ms. Tibideaux: Yes… as long as you kept your studies up. But I’ve spoken to your professors and they say that you are underperforming egregiously.

Rachel: I’m sorry… who said that?

Ms. Tibideaux: All of them.

 

Rachel was so totally disconnected with what was happening at NYADA that she had no clue that she was failing every single class she was enrolled it. Yes, she was inexperienced and biting off a lot more than she could chew, but she ignored the advice of everyone who was telling her what she didn't want to hear. She blasted Kurt for telling her that she was making a mistake just quitting NYADA. She insulted Ms. Tibideaux for not granting her even more leeway than she'd already been given. Rachel said it herself that NYADA had been very generous in granting Rachel the freedom to pursue her professional role, but the fact that Rachel couldn't balance the two (which would be nearly impossible under the best of circumstances) and then grew indignant when the special favors stopped flowing... that wasn't inexperience talking. That was a girl who's head was so far up her own ass that she could taste her own farts. And it doesn't change the fact that Rachel would not have quit NYADA had she not been called out on her failing grades. She quit because she was being told that she wasn't holding up her end of the bargain.

[Hana Chan]

Taken from the Rise and Fall of Sue Sylvester thread..

 

What attitude exactly? Toward her alcoholic dance teacher who was verbally abusive toward her and made hateful comments about her ethnic features if I recall? The teacher who should have been fired for a multitude of reasons? If the show wanted me to see Rachel needing to learn a lesson in NYADA, they should have picked a character who #1 wasn't a guest star #2 wasn't a terrible person who loved to humiliate her student and #3 actually seemed competent/sober/ respectful. Not Kate Hudson who needed an obvious dance double criticizing Rachel on her poor dancing skills.

 

Cassandra July might have been a cruel drunk, but she also was a damn good teacher to those who actually wanted to learn. Yes, she insulted everyone (and I would love to know what kind of nickname she would have saddled Kurt with - though after dealing with Sue's unique brand of affection, I doubt that Kurt would have blinked). But she also was demanding and expected hard work and took her teaching seriously. And when she had students that were willing to put in the work, she came through for them. We saw that TA who was able to get a professional role because she helped him and was supportive of him.

 

Rachel's problem was that she wasn't really interested in learning. Or if she had to, that she needed to have her hand held and be told that she's so good but could be better if she just worked a little bit. Someone rightly telling her that she was the worst dancer in the class wasn't something that she was equipped to deal with. And instead of focusing on actually learning anything, she spent 99% of her time in her dance classes battling Cassandra and wanting to be proven right (that she was a much better dancer than Cassandra gave her credit for). When Cassandra even complimented her on a small improvement, Rachel threw it back in her face.

 

And it takes two to have a war the way they did. Not going to defend Cassandra's behavior most of the time, but Rachel instigated most of their problems. Had she buckled down and decided that as awful a person as Cassandra was, she was teaching at NYADA for a reason and she could learn from her, Cassandra would probably have lost interest in fighting with her very quickly. But instead Rachel kept instigating confrontations. And when she learned that Cassandra's own Broadway career had crashed and burned, she decided that there was nothing a "has been" could teach her. Experience and greater knowledge meant nothing for Rachel... not when it stood in the way of being told that she was the most special snowflake that ever snowflaked.

 

Hell, she even lost any shred of respect for Ms. Tibideaux. That despite being lauded as such a promising singer, given a Winter Showcase spot and then winning as a freshman (all due to Ms. Tibideuax's high regard for her talents), the instant Carman told her something that she didn't want to hear, Ms. Tibideaux became another "has been" to be ignored.

 

Rachel doesn't really respect anyone in authority over her. So long as she gets what she wants, she'll think the world of them. But the instant that any of them cross her (Cassandra, Ms. Tibideaux, Mr. Schue, the producer of Funny Girl), then she can disregard them as just another enemy standing in the way of her pre-destined greatness.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Hana Chan

[camussie]

As I clearly said before, NYADA could have easily given her a leave of absence while she worked on Funny Girl. Hell, Carmen or the school board very possibly could have worked with her schedule (ya know, seeing as how she'd the lead in a major Broadway musical) to allow her to take her midterm when it didn't interfere with her work commitments. Schools are supposed to help their students succeed. Rachel succeeding with people knowing where she went to school would have made NYADA looks good too.

 

 

Yes they could have.  If she asked when confronted with the fact that she was failing her classes.  The thing is she didn't.  She got belligerent when Carmen brought her into her office.  All she had to say was I thought I could handle the workload given the concessions NYADA has already made, but it is obvious I can't.  I would like to take a LOA.  The fact that Rachel copped an attitude instead shows that she was not responsible enough for NYADA to keep giving her concessions.  That she was a ticking time bomb who was going to blow her reputation and by extension NYADA's, if they didn't cut ties, soon enough.  And that is exactly what happened. She flamed out.  If she was still a NYADA student when that happened the professional Broadway community could have easily wondered, if this is the kind of student NYADA supports and promotes then is it prudent to cast other NYADA students/graduates in our productions?

Edited March 9, 2015 by camussie

[tom87]

Sorry but when I was on work/study in college I had to meet with my advisor twice a semester.  I certainly was not the lead in a BWay musical I worked 20 hours a week on campus.

 

So  even thought Rachel was wrong in how she handled things I think the school failed her a bit too.

 

Just one more thing that was ridiculous with this whole arc.  

[fakeempress]

From the episode thead:

 

 

Like I said to start this whole discussion.  Virtually every character on this show has bullshit contrived storylines that don't make sense.  Rachel's for whatever reason bothers people more.  I think it's because she gets a whole lot more focus than the other characters.  And people keep trying to apply both real world rules and so called fake glee rules at the same time.  You can't do both. 

Kurt got a magical Vogue internship.  His band magically books NY hotspots for gigs.  His dad is a congressman?  Mike got into one of the best ballets without any ballet training?  Quinn is in a drama program at Yale that doesn't actually exist for undergraduates?  Britney was at MIT despite having what a 0.0 grade point average?  Sam stumbles into a lucrative modeling contract?  Santana walks onto a understudy role in a Broadway show?  Three kids from the same high school get into a prestigious program within 2 years of each other that only accepts 20 students a year?  Those are some great odds.  People should be clamoring to go the McKinley.  Come on...it's all contrived bullshit.  I can't emphasize it more.

Every character is given something magic and not true to the real world. For me though, things like Mike isn't going to be in Joffrey (but in a more appropriate dance school) or Kurt getting a Vogue internship instead of a Starbucks job just to move to NYC, or Quinn's program not existing in Yale, isn't crucial on the same scale as characters repeatedly going out of their way to secure Rachel second-chance auditions in her overall arc when we are told how superiorly talented she is. The former is more about nitpicking and the writers not caring about the realia, but I think still handwaveable (Kurt was skilled and very knowledgeable in fashion, Quinn was a top student, Mike was a great dancer, etc., there is some thin thread of logic). The other though goes to the core of the character and its arc, and the writers not caring about their own inner logic and replacing it with the special snowflake treatment. It's plausible that Mike will be accepted into some kind of dance school. But people falling over themselves to help Rachel even against their own interests, and she still doesn't recognise her own shortcomings and take responsibility for her failures, and still not learning, is something quite different, regardless of whether we apply real world criteria or Glee world criteria.  In that respect, I'd rather compare Rachel's lack of learning with the Kurt/Blaine relationship arc where they never learned from their mistakes but kept repeating them because that's what the writers forced on them despite both narrative and real world logic.

Edited March 9, 2015 by fakeempress

[camussie]

So  even thought Rachel was wrong in how she handled things I think the school failed her a bit too.

 

 

I can agree with that, which is why, while I think Rachel doesn't deserve another chance at NYADA because she hasn't seemed to learn a thing through her monumental failures, if she had learned something I wouldn't have been all that bothered that Carmen gave her a second chance, saying that while you messed up big time we also messed up.  How about a fresh start for all of us?  Unfortunately Rachel hasn't learned from her mistakes so her getting another bite at NYADA bugs even as I think it is the wiser option right now if she wants to build a lasting career.

Edited March 9, 2015 by camussie

[dizzyizzy01]

From the episode thead:

Every character is given something magic and not true to the real world. For me though, things like Mike isn't going to be in Joffrey (but in a more appropriate dance school) or Kurt getting a Vogue internship just to move to NYC, or Quinn's program not existing in Yale, isn't crucial on the same scale as characters repeatedly going out of their way to secure Rachel second-chance auditions in her overall arc when we are told how superiorly talented she is. One is more of nitpicking and the writers not caring about the realia, but I think still handwaveable (Kurt was skilled and very knowledgeable in fashion, Quinn was a top student, Mike was a great dancer, etc., there is some thread of justification). The other though goes to the core of the character and its arc, and the writers not caring about their own inner logic and replacing it with the special snowflake treatment. It's plausible that Mike will be accepted into some kind of dance school. But people falling over themselves to help Rachel even against their own interests, and she still doesn't recognise her own shortcomings and take responsibility for her failures is something quite different, regardless of whether we apply real world criteria or Glee world criteria.  

I think it comes across as not crucial only because their stories get no emphasis.  I mean if you were going to delve into these other characters stories a bit more, these hack writers would come up with equally WTF roadblocks full of character retcons and contrivances.  Hey if all it takes is for Kurt to be somewhat knowledgeable in fashion to get a Vogue internship or for Mercedes' CD to randomly land in some producers hands after selling it out of the trunk of her car for a couple of weeks for her to get a lucrative record contract, then all Rachel has to be is talented and for the producer to like her to get offered a part.  It's kind of the same thing is it not?  It's all fairly unrealistic even if it in theory could happen.  The main difference is Kurt/Mercedes/Mike/Quinn etc. stories aren't in the forefront, and therefore don't get much of the other characters involved, but they are equally as contrived.

 

Also, Kurt didn't actually move to NYC for the internship.  He moved to NY to follow his dreams.  He magically got the internship in episode 3 after already being in NY.  He could have very well have been hitting the cattle call auditions as well.  It was just a magical triumph for Kurt to get a Vogue internship.  

[fakeempress]

 

I think it comes across as not crucial only because their stories get no emphasis.  I mean if you were going to delve into these other characters stories a bit more, these hack writers would come up with equally WTF roadblocks full of character retcons and contrivances.  Hey if all it takes is for Kurt to be somewhat knowledgeable in fashion to get a Vogue internship or for Mercedes' CD to randomly land in some producers hands after selling it out of the trunk of her car for a couple of weeks for her to get a lucrative record contract, then all Rachel has to be is talented and for the producer to like her to get offered a part.

It's not about Rachel's talent or the emphasis. It's about how Rachel's career success arc is narratively constructed to depend on constant propping by other characters. Kurt's Vogue isn't his primary SL and went nowhere fast. Rachel though keeps getting unearned second chances in her primary arc which depend on other characters being used as Magic Negroes and such, and not recognising where she went wrong, and not learning. This I don't think is the case with Kurt's comparable NYADA arc, which has been his primary talent-related (career-related) arc, but is the case with his primary relationship arc (which I find more to the point regarding not learning, and even using characters such as Karofsky this season as props). 

 

I think there are levels of contrivances, and some are more important than others in terms of the characters' arcs, while seems to me you place all of them on an equal footing. Yes, the Vogue internship was magic, but where does it rank in the character's overall arc? 

Edited March 9, 2015 by fakeempress

[fakeempress]

Well, if you look at all of it from a purely realistic perspective, you won't find anything convincing, starting with the fact that NYADA doesn't exist and that depending on the character, it either has most restrictive admissions programme or the laxest. At this stage, I'd settle for at least the major character beats to be supported and earned within the unrealistic conventions of the show, if we talk about the main arcs. Which is how Rachel will return to NYC and her career after the major fall is for this season. The latest episode advanced that, but in a way that wasn't earned for me. Compared to how she was simply gifted two new opportunities, Kurt's NYADA admission feels the most authentic within the show's world as someone said earlier - which was my initial point of disagreement because you said it was unearned as well. Also, Mercedes getting a recording contract, even though unrealistic -- and yet strangest things have happened and people have been discovered by pure chance but let's assume it's completely untrue to life -- still feels earned to me within the unrealistic conventions of the show, because of how the character worked for it. I just don't think unrealistic and unearned are always one and the same thing here. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by fakeempress

[dizzyizzy01]

Well, if you look at all of it from a purely realistic perspective, you won't find anything convincing, starting with the fact that NYADA doesn't exist and that depending on the character, it either has most restrictive admissions programme or the laxest. At this stage, I'd settle for at least the major character beats to be supported and earned within the unrealistic conventions of the show, if we talk about the main arcs. Which is how Rachel will return to NYC and her career after the major fall is for this season. The latest episode advanced that, but in a way that wasn't earned for me. Compared to how she was simply gifted two new opportunities, Kurt's NYADA admission feels the most authentic within the show's world as someone said earlier - which was my initial point of disagreement because you said it was unearned as well. Also, Mercedes getting a recording contract, even though unrealistic -- and yet strangest things have happened and people have been discovered by pure chance but let's assume it's completely untrue to life -- still feels earned to me within the unrealistic conventions of the show, because of how the character worked for it. I just don't think unrealistic and unearned are always one and the same thing here. 

 

I think there are some personal character bias and double standards to saying one feels earned while the other doesn't.  

 

Anyway, we're never going to agree so this will be the last I say about this, but scoring a record deal because of a random Youtube video that the person didn't even upload themselves does not feel earned at all.  Nor does scoring a record contract (#2!) by a random person walking by at an opportune time.  It's not like she was shown hustling and sending out demos to labels.  She wasn't pounding the pavement knocking on doors.  She was back in Lima and selling a couple CDs outside a 7-11.  Someone just happened to walk by where she was selling CDs out of her trunk (Kanye West's maid of all things!!).   How in the ever loving hell does that feel earned.  It's just blind ass luck and pretty ridiculous. The only real difference is that the show didn't spend much time on Mercedes achievements and it didn't involve the other characters since everything happened off screen.  How the hell is that earned anymore than Rachel's Broadway opportunities.  Both things just basically fell in their laps.  I mean I guess at least Rachel had to go to a couple of auditions that had been arranged for her and call up Carmen.  But I guess we can say Mercedes was in a 7-11 parking lot and recorded a video I guess.  Both feel extremely unearned to me.  I can't root for either of these achievements because the stories for both of them suck and are basically wish fulfillment.

Edited March 10, 2015 by dizzyizzy01

[caracas1914]

All this "earned " versus "unearned 'career stuff for the students belies that most of the stories just aren't all that interesting.

Now Santana getting a National Yeast commercial was one of the few entertaining career forays for as short as it was, it was hilarious.

[ChaChaSlide]

The level of success she's suddenly achieved in less than a year has been portrayed totally unrealistic. A random youtube video to get a backup singer gig and selling CDs out of her trunk. That's the extent of how much we've been told about how she got her recording deals.

So you've never heard of Justin Bieber? Adele herself, it was literally 1 demo her friend posted on Myspace that got her signed. A bit over 2 years later she had 2 grammys, a bit over 5 that jumped to like 8. These days thats how the recording industry works, its a matter of the right place at the right time.

That being said, to actually make it and not burn out you have to work and work hard. When Mercedes got her first contract and lost it, she was being told to compromise herself in a way thats beyond maybe changing her hair style or fashion sense. She was asked to do things against her moral code, and her leaving is understandable. However, she didnt just go back to Lima and fuddy duddy about the school until her friends put on her big girl pants, she continued to make music, working on her craft, getting her music out there.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the music industry, but door to door sales is definetly not the way to get your music heard. Most local artists I know that hustle their work do it at concerts, clubs, and yes, convenience stores because those are high traffic areas where people from all walks of life come through. You have a much bigger chance of meeting "someone who knows someone" there as opposed to your sleepy bedroom community (have no idea if thats where Mercedes actually lives, but with her dad being a dentist that makes sense). Not to mention that you have to put in time, work, and money into making a quality mixtape. Anyone who is truly trying to make it big either purchases their own equipment or puts in studio time. It becomes a job, putting out the best quality art you can, outside every day for hours trying to be heard. That doesn't seem unearned to me.

Music, really all art cannot be measured in the same terms a 9-5 can, but to say Mercedes success was "unearned" because she didn't become successful in a certain manner is preposterous.

Also, its what you do when an "opportunity falls in your lap" that makes ALL the difference as to how it feels to the viewer. We've already seen Rachel piss away a second chance; NYADA did not pick her the first time around. And not only did she piss that chance away, she also pissed away her dream job, Fanny Brice for an ephemeral whim. You don't get why people wouldnt root for her on that alone? I know for me, my feelings would be different if, like how Mercedes continued making music after leaving the label on a smaller, "homemade" scale, Rachel wouldve sought out opportunities in small local productions, something to say she's still working to get back where she was. If she wouldve been randomly rediscovered by chance like Mercedes, I would still say she earned it because she was working towards that goal, just on a smaller scale. Instead, we have Rachel bebopping around Lima feeling sorry for herself for her own decisions (when did we see Mercedes pity herself after the first label dropped her?) while her friends go out of their way to drop opportunities in her lap. She made NO ATTEMPT towards WORKING for her dream. How can you not appreciate the difference?

Don't bring up Mercedes to make a point about Rachel, theyre two entirely different characters, storylines, motivations and paths. There's no real comparison. Only thing they share is a man, who they split 6 ways with Tina, Santana, Brittany and Quinn. Heck, this is pure sarcastic conjecture, but

I wouldnt be surprised if all of the original New Directions girls were pregnant alongside Rachel, therefore the Fabrevans, Samtana, Bram, Samcedes, SamTina, and Samchel shippers are all satisfied

Edited March 10, 2015 by ChaChaSlide

[fakeempress]

 

I think there are some personal character bias and double standards to saying one feels earned while the other doesn't.

I am curious what is your understanding of "earned" in this narrative. Do you need to be shown several episodes worth of, say, Kurt doing scales and rehearsing with a vocal coach for the repeat audition, is that what you need to see for it to feel "earned" and"realistic"? 

 

Rachel getting second chances times two in the latest episode feels pretty unearned to me based on how her narrative stemming from her preceding failures has been handled by the show. I agreed several times that Kurt's Vogue success and band success were gifted (though the band had not one but four great singers and I can seen how they can make an impression). What I definitely cannot agree with is you saying that his NYADA admission was similarly unearned. It was anything but. It was the same process as in the real life you so insist upon - people apply several times until they make an impression or give up. That's how several Glee cast members got on this show, Darren, the Alistair actor, Blake, etc. etc., they tried and tried, until the stars aligned for them -- while for others they didn't align. Rachel wasn't shown or even hinted at in any way to be trying and trying and working on going back to school or Broadway before Mercedes swooped in as the fairy godmother with the magic gifted audition. Kurt on the other hand listened to Carmen's critique and changed his approach to the audition, and got in on third try. It's there in the show's canon, it's not like I'm making it up because of some character bias.

 

As for Mercedes's two contracts, Cha ChaSlide has an excellent point about Bieber, Adele; even Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor apparently were contracted as songwriters just as Mercedes was. People self-release EPs all the time, like Darren's. To say there is no hint of realism in Mercedes' story is ludicrous in the face of quite a few current examples and success stories in the music industry. 

 

Even Ryan Murphy said that he got Ian's movie script that started the Glee ball rolling, in the gym, where someone practically cornered him to pass it on. I don't think he's making this whole story up; granted, it may not have been so dramatic as he told it on Inside the Actors Studio.

Edited March 10, 2015 by fakeempress

[dizzyizzy01]

I am curious what is your understanding of "earned" in this narrative. Do you need to be shown several episodes worth of, say, Kurt doing scales and rehearsing with a vocal coach for the repeat audition, is that what you need to see for it to feel "earned" and"realistic"? 

 

Rachel getting second chances times two in the latest episode feels pretty unearned to me based on how her narrative stemming from her preceding failures has been handled by the show. I agreed several times that Kurt's Vogue success and band success were gifted (though the band had not one but four great singers and I can seen how they can make an impression). What I definitely cannot agree with is you saying that his NYADA admission was similarly unearned. It was anything but. It was the same process as in the real life you so insist upon - people apply several times until they make an impression or give up. That's how several Glee cast members got on this show, Darren, the Alistair actor, Blake, etc. etc., they tried and tried, until the stars aligned for them -- while for others they didn't align. Rachel wasn't shown or even hinted at in any way to be trying and trying and working on going back to school or Broadway before Mercedes swooped in as the fairy godmother with the magic gifted audition. Kurt on the other hand listened to Carmen's critique and changed his approach to the audition, and got in on third try. It's there in the show's canon, it's not like I'm making it up because of some character bias.

 

As for Mercedes's recording contract, Cha ChaSlide has an excellent point about Bieber, Adele; even Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor apparently were contracted as songwriters just as Mercedes was. People self-release EPs all the time, like Darren's. To say there is no hint of realism in Mercedes' story is ludicrous in the face of quite a few current success stories in the music industry. 

 

Even Ryan Murphy said that he got Ian's movie script that started the Glee ball rolling, in his gym, where someone practically cornered him to pass it on. I don't think he's making this whole story up; granted, it may not have been so dramatic as he told it in Inside the Actors Studio.

 

My character bias comment was directed towards the Mercedes discussion and not Kurt/NYADA.  I think the Kurt NYADA storyline was unrealistic, but unearned is probably not the right word for that one.  Mercedes' success though for me comes across totally unearned.

 

I think I've stated a lot about how Mercedes story is totally unrealistic.  But just one more thing since these real-life examples were brought up.  Taylor Swift picked up and moved to Nashville and knocked on every door of music row before she got her deal with RCA.  She was playing local cafes and showcases to try to get people to come see her.  Meghan Trainor spent quite a few years trying before All About that Bass blew up.  She released I believe three earlier albums that pretty much went nowhere.  She's also won several song-writer competitions, attended the Berklee school of music, and had released her earlier album efforts before getting the song-writer deal she had.  I don't think you can really even begin to compare these situations to what happened to Mercedes.  Mean Kanye West's maid hands a bootleg album to Ryan Seacrest? Ok...I can completely see the similarities there.

 

Ian was dinking around Hollywood for years though as an actor/writer.  I think his original Glee script was created about 4 years before it got to Ryan.  So you're equating these real-life situations which took years to develop to Mercedes somehow managing to score 2 record deals, record 2 albums,and basically blow-up in the mainstream within a little over a year.  Does that really sound like Mercedes' achievements seem realistic or reasonable even, let alone 'earned'?  

[caracas1914]

Uh... Glee was Chris Colfer first EVER professional gig

Talk about unearned.

Edited March 10, 2015 by caracas1914

[tom87]

I do not care about how the opportunities came about tbh.  Everyone gets opportunities in a variety of ways through friends, through networking, through past jobs,  even being at the right place at the right time.  I'm not going to bemoan any  of them for taking those opportunites that come their way no matter how easy or hard.  Becasue in the end they still had to earn the role or that internship, that record deal or that scholarship.   So it is earned imo no matter how the opportunity arose.

Edited March 10, 2015 by tom87

[tom87]

I bet somewhere someone has actually been discovered in an open cattle call too.

[wayne67]

I find myself distracted by all the random career outcomes when a character like Sam goes from being a stripper at one point to wanting to being a one and done model and then all of a sudden wanting to be a football coach when there has been no telegraphing of any real interest in that activity before this season.

 

Personally I'm less concerned about whether their success is earned or unearned or realistic or unrealistic and more about whether their success is mildly interesting.

 

Rachel's success as Funny Girl was boring and took up a lot of season 5 and now her abandoning that career opportunity has taken up a lot of season 6 with no self awareness for the actual reason for her career flailing.

 

I don't mind that Britney is somehow a super math genius as long as it's seldom referenced and doesn't take up too much time as it's completely eye roll worthy.

 

Similar to why Sue's illegal antics are amusing in small doses but a whole episode of her psychosis just breaks the suspension of disbelief for the fact she's still employed while she's assaulting students repeatedly.

[Hana Chan]

While I will agree that the level of successes enjoyed by most characters (Mercedes and Santana in particular) are unrealistic, I'm not going to agree that they are unearned since Mercedes was working to get her music out there and Santana was working multiple jobs in NY and put herself out for auditions. The results might be unrealistic, but they were earned.

 

That is a far cry from Rachel's storyline where she can stroll into NYADA and just by asking, get readmitted after flunking her classes and quitting and into a Broadway role after quitting a successful show nearly immediately after opening by attending a single audition. Rachel has not been shown to having  done anything to push her own career forward so it's understandable why I (and others) see her new opportunities fell so unearned. Not after basically seeing her sitting around and feeling sorry for herself that she "lost" everything and playing choir leader. Even if the show just had her doing a community theater project in Lima and used that to jump her back to Broadway it would have given some hint that Rachel as doing a bit of the heavy lifting herself to move her career forward after her epic fail. But we don't get even that. We just get people handing Rachel opportunities that she did nothing to earn and she succeeds not because she worked for them but because she's "special" and "belongs on Broadway".

 

And for all the accusations that Kurt's storyline is equally unrealistic, he's the only who actually has had a realistic career arc. That just because he got into NYADA and is doing well there it hasn't exactly opened a ton of doors for him before he graduated. That his biggest performance opportunity came by working in a nursing home production. He's going to have to work hard even with the NYADA credential on his CV. You can't compare that to Rachel who just strolls into huge professional successes with little (if any) real effort.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Hana Chan

[Cranberry]

A fellow moderator hid a bunch of posts here early this morning after we received several reports in the report center. I will have time to read back and see if anything should be unhidden later today, but for now, if your posts vanished, that's a big hint to drop this line of debate.

[camussie]

I also don't think the writers dismissed Finchel . I think the writers didn't want to write about Rachel finally moving on from Finn. They didn't want to deal with the type of writing that would require. So they ignored the real reason Rachel haven't been dating, in order to ignore the Finn elephant in the room because it would require them to actually show us how Rachel is dealing with the fact that she is at a place where she feels that she needs/wants to move-on. The writers didn't want to deal with those pesky little things, so they ignore the Finn part in the equation

 

.

The reason I felt they did was that picture wall.  It would have been one thing for Finn's picture not to be prominent but they not only did that but they instead had Sam front and center. Given the real life sensitivities of the whole sad situation, I am not one who ever really needed them to delve into Rachel's mourning process.  I was fine with that one conversation between Mercedes & Rachel last year.  What I wasn't fine with was erasing Finn's from Rachel past and replacing him with Finn.  

 

I also think it is dang weird that neither Kurt nor Rachel noted that they were doing what Finn planned to do with their life.  It reminded me of last year when Kurt was hurt in Bash and Burt didn't say the obvious thing - Carol and I lost one son this year.  We can't lose another.

 

I also didn't appreciate that they flashed to Finn's picture when Rachel was trying to guilt Will to throwing the invitational for ND.  That was saying in red lights Will is doing this for Finn's memory so you (the audience) should be okay with it.  

Edited March 10, 2015 by camussie

[ancslove]

Agree. I think for the most part, they've dealt well with the Finn elephant, but they seem really at a loss about how to handle Rachel moving on. It's strange, since Lea herself has managed to find new love.

[camussie]

So I wish they did more of the random pairings. It's an ENSEMBLE SHOW, guys. Use it to your advantage. Jeez. It's not that hard to write two characters

 

 

While I agree they should have shaken up scene partners some, I don't agree Glee was an ensemble show.  I think many people wanted it to be but never once did I feel that it was.  It was always a show with 2-4 leads with the rest being supporting players.  I think one of the biggest mistakes Glee made was focusing too much at times on some of the supporting players.  Over the first 3 seasons I felt the supporting players Glee got right, in regards to focus, were Mike and Artie.  They both got a few focused episodes over the years and some C stories but they weren't written beyond what their roles were supposed to be.  The same can't be said for Brittany, Karofsky, Sam, and Blaine and when they got too much focus it was to the detriment of the show.  Sure Blaine eventually became a lead in season 4 but in season 3 he got too much song focus.  

 

On another topic

 

Glee leave a white man single? Never. Even if it's a woman who would never look twice at him in any reality.

 

 

Ryder was single for most of season 4, other than a flirtation with Marley.  As was Finn.  After he boned Shelby Puck was single the reason of season 3.  As for the finale it seems like everyone, save maybe Mike who is off screen, gets an endgame.  Not just the white guys.  

 

Honestly while I get Glee tended to write white guys as heroes I think it really gets overlooked that they also used straight white guys as the avatars for the people in middle america (or as I am sure RM snidely refers to as flyover country) who need to be schooled in tolerance and political correctness.   Wanted to do a PSA?  Let's have a white guy (usually Finn or Will) be the one to say something he shouldn't so we RM can hammer home a message of tolerance.  

Edited March 10, 2015 by camussie

[phoenixrising]

Whenever Finn's explicitly come up this season, I've been annoyed, because it feels like they use it to manipulate us when they want (that Burt/Carole/Klaine scene for example, to say "support Klaine's crazy decisions because Finn would!"). But they do seem to totally skirt around in regards to Rachel dating again. Which, part of the reason I didn't want Sam and Rachel is that it just seems...awkward. Because if I was Sam, I'd constantly be thinking about how weird it would be to date Finn's girlfriend. And wouldn't it be weird for Rachel too? This is why if Jesse wasn't going to be happening, I wanted to new character (and just long enough to show they were into each other, honestly). There's not really any of that weirdness or baggage there would be with rachel/any glee club guy. They also could've not really talked about Finn then, which would've been fine, but when you put romance near the beginning of the season, getting vague statements about safety while the guy is hypnotized does not jive with me, and feels odd they're avoiding it.

I don't think they're explicitly trying to disregard finchel, because I think they're just being incompetent. It seems like they're trying to temporarily disregard Samcedes, because that break up was as smooth as Blainofsky's was. And Sam hasn't thought of her since.

[SNeaker]

A show can have leads and still have an ensemble cast (and properly use that cast.) Leslie was the lead on Park and Rec. Jake is the lead on Brooklyn 99. Elena/Stefan/Damon are the leads on The Vampire Diaries, etc. That doesn't mean that they don't have ensembles and don't properly use, mix up, and service the rest of the characters.

[camussie]

I felt there were times his memory was used well.  Well two times time - in the premiere when Will said he always pictured Finn being the one to take over and when Rachel was concerned about Carol's reaction to her dating again.  The others I didn't like

• I thought panning to his picture after Rachel pleaded to Will to throw the audition was manipulative
• I felt like Sam invoking Finn's memory to bring Spencer to the team was just more of the Sam = Finn lite push.  That conversation would have worked better between Kurt/Spencer or even Artie/Spencer since Finn pushed the football team to accept both Kurt and Artie
• I really didn't like the Carol using Finn to say to Kurt YOLO so go ahead rush into a marriage with Blaine

 

As for it being weird for Sam/Rachel it wouldn't necessarily be that weird but what made it weird was how hard the show pushed Sam = Finn lite.  They had the Will, Finn's mentor, flat out tell Sam he was the new Finn.  

 

I don't think they're explicitly trying to disregard finchel, because I think they're just being incompetent

 

 

I still say that whole picture wall mess was explicitly disregarding Finn, if not Finn/Rachel.  It was just so blatant how Finn was reduced to some dude in the choir while Sam was made front and center.  

 

A show can have leads and still have an ensemble cast (and properly use that cast.) Leslie was the lead on Park and Rec. Jake is the lead on Brooklyn 99. Elena/Stefan/Damon are the leads on The Vampire Diaries, etc. That doesn't mean that they don't have ensembles and don't properly use, mix up, and service the rest of the characters.

 

 

We are discussing semantics here but I wouldn't call those show ensembles.  I would say, like glee, they were shows with leads and supporting characters.  The difference is, unlike Glee, they make much better use of their supporting cast by mixing it up but still never really betraying the structure of this is the lead and these are the supporting characters.

Edited March 10, 2015 by camussie

[LydiaMoon1]

There's also speculation of Kitty/Roderick and Artie/Tina endgames.

I once knew this kid in elementary school who would share his candy with you, but only after he spit on it first to make sure it completely unappetizing.  That’s how I feel about season 6 of Glee.  This is what the Glee writers have done to the remaining ships (with the exception of St. Berry and, surprisingly, Brittana).

 

Season 6 was supposedly about giving the fans what they want?  ‘Okay’ said the Glee writers, but just like that kid on the playground, we’ll spit on them first so that even if you got what you “wanted”, it will be completely unpalatable.  You love Klaine?  We’ll break them up, have Blaine date Kurt’s bully, then reunite and marry them all in the same episode!  You love Samcedes? Want Samchel?  We’ll hypnotize Sam, make Mercedes give him to Rachel so that Rachel can get her cooties all over him, then give him back to Mercedes at the eleventh hour! Still miss Finchel?  Well, we’ll just wipe out their very existence along the way. You want Tike? You miss WildeAbrams? Let’s bring Kitty and Artie back in Season 6 and have Mike and Tina discuss marriage, but then put Tina back with Artie and Kitty with someone else. Happy now?  No? Great!

 

It's like the final season has been one great, big, meta FU to the shippers (with the exception of St. Berry and, surprisingly, Brittana).

 

Having Sam be Rachel's fuck buddy ready to be disposed once the real contender, Jesse, enters the building is one of the few things Glee got right.

 

I strongly disagree.  See above. First Bram and then Samchel ruined Samcedes for me.

Edited March 10, 2015 by LydiaMoon1

[phoenixrising]

While I agree they should have shaken up scene partners some, I don't agree Glee was an ensemble show. I think many people wanted it to be but never once did I feel that it was. It was always a show with 2-4 leads with the rest being supporting players. I think one of the biggest mistakes Glee made was focusing too much at times on some of the supporting players. Over the first 3 seasons I felt the supporting players Glee got right, in regards to focus, were Mike and Artie. They both got a few focused episodes over the years and some C stories but they weren't written beyond what their roles were supposed to be. The same can't be said for Brittany, Karofsky, Sam, and Blaine and when they got too much focus it was to the detriment of the show. Sure Blaine eventually became a lead in season 4 but in season 3 he got too much song focus.

And the funny thing is, I hate all the leads, because glee stopped knowing what to do with them, and rib made them so unlikable.

Regardless, I still think RIB wants an ensemble show, and wants the Rachel Berry Show. Like, look at this season. We've wasted so much time on random crap, and people, to the detriment of things going on with Rachel, and building up her success. But I'm betting the ending will still be mostly about her. And I won't care because anyone who gets too much screen time on this show because intolerable.

Also, this show has tried to be more than it can handle, with psas, musical numbers, comedy, drama, realistic, zaney, high school, New York, number of characters, etc. it's always tried to balance a lot, and I think it's best when they don't focus on any one thing for too long, because then it'll become the pezberry fight which made me want to kill both of them by the end (and I stan santana, but she went too far by the end of it).

Edited March 10, 2015 by phoenixrising

[camussie]

I think this season proves RM & team see the show as one with 2-4 leads and the rest supporting players.  

• The leads this season are Rachel & Sue.  
• Season 5 it was Rachel & Blaine.
• Season 4 it was McKinley: Blaine and to a lesser degree Marley and Sam.  NY: Rachel.  
• Season 3 it was Rachel, Finn, Santana, and Kurt somewhat.
• Season 2 it was Finn, Rachel , Kurt
• Season 1 it was Rachel, Will, Finn

 

The only consistent lead in all 6 seasons has been Rachel but there has always been other leads in each season

Edited March 10, 2015 by camussie

[SNeaker]

I think there are very very few shows that can be called ensembles and don't have clear leads (especially one hour shows.) When people use that term they mean a show with an ensemble cast. I wouldn't say it's wrong to call Glee an ensemble show just because there were a few clear leads (and even then, that line became blurred later when the leads were given less screen time.)

Edited March 10, 2015 by SNeaker

[Ceeg]

I once knew this kid in elementary school who would share his candy with you, but only after he spit on it first to make sure it completely unappetizing.  That’s how I feel about season 6 of Glee.  

 

Heather Hogan wrote something similar, in one of her recaps for Glee, after Santana made those dumb bisexual ~straying for penis jokes.

 

From her recap:

 

 

I don’t understand Glee‘s writers. I really don’t. They’re like if really talented chefs prepared a four-course, five-star meal and right before they served it to you, literally every single time before they set the plate down on the table, they were like, “You know what’ll make this taste even better? If I spit in it.” And then you’re like, “Wow, gross. It looks good and smells good but all I can think about is how you fucking spit in it.” And they’re like, “God! We slave and slave and slave over these dinners and you’ll never be happy!” And you’re like, “I would be happy if you’d just stop spitting in the food!” And they’re like, “You hate all food!” And you’re like, “No, you asshole. I love food. I love your food. I just hate spit in my food.” And they’re like, “OK, here’s the same dish served a different way. And also here is my spit in it.” And you’re like, “Seriously? I can’t eat here anymore.” And they’re like, “Stupid angry lesbians.”

Just make the meal and stop spitting in, Glee! Jesus, how hard can that possibly be?!

[LydiaMoon1]

ITA with her.  Glee has managed to destroy everything good it's ever done.  Thanks Glee!

[caracas1914]

It's amazing how they retcon even good moments on the show.

[shantown]

It's amazing how they retcon even good moments on the show.

It's almost like they look back to see what people liked and enjoyed, and make sure to go back and poop on that too.

[Ceeg]

From the marketing thread:

 

The newbies would've had those hours and those conditions without any of the credit that goes with it.

 

Not completely. By the time the noobs came around, they were sharing a narrative with NYC. So, already in S4, the workload of the Lima narrative is cut out by 15-20%, depending on how much screentime NYC got in an episode. And then, in season 5, NYC became a lot more of a shared narrative, which was around 40%, maybe more, until Lima and the noobs were completely phased out by 5.12. So, that's really only a season and a half, with shared narratives and 4 years of experienced production staff.

 

The original kids had 3 seasons of that mess, PLUS 2 summers of a national tour. They had like a 2 week break from Glee, post-tour but pre-filming. And there was no split narrative to share the load, and they were also there at the apex of when RIB+ actually gave a fuck about the quality of the show, so there was a lot more effort, and I'm sure some growing pains as well, as production figured out the most efficient ways to use their workhorses. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ceeg

[SevenStars]

The newbies would've had those hours and those conditions without any of the credit that goes with it. To somehow suggest that the original cast is somehow put upon because they were part of the original success is ridiculous.

Did they also have to do a tours a few weeks/days after doing ALL that work? Did they have to spent hrs/days preparing for  tours? 

Even the most experience singers who are use to going on tours, talk about how every tour is so draining that most of them have to prepare their body and minds before they even begin it because by the end of it, they are drain. All those tours that original cast did, HELP Glee success. It helped Glee become what it was. That was the original cast, not the newbies. 

 

According to most Glee fans the original cast are the only reason Glee was a success and everyone who came after is inferior in terms of talent and now apparently work ethic.

 

 

Most Glee fans acknowledged that without the hard work of the original Glee cast, Glee might not be as successful as it became. As for talent, it is mostly subjective, but I think the original cast had more talent because there were more characters who showcase that talent. Also some people because they seen the original cast on tour and saw their talent front and center, not behind a screen or after it was edited, will give the original cast an edge when it comes to having more talent. For example, people who have seen Amber on stage, says that despite how great we see her on screen, on stage is she is so much better. 

 

Since I never even mention the newbies, I don't know where you are getting that I was calling them inferior when it comes to work ethics. I was talking about the original cast.  So if you read what I said as being an insult to the newbies, that is on you. 

 

I get that you might love the newbies more than the original cast but to keep acting like they had NOTHING to do with the success of Glee is unbelievable to me. 

[jaytee1812]

From the marketing thread:

 

Not completely. By the time the noobs came around, they were sharing a narrative with NYC. So, already in S4, the workload of the Lima narrative is cut out by 15-20%, depending on how much screentime NYC got in an episode. And then, in season 5, NYC became a lot more of a shared narrative, which was around 40%, maybe more, until Lima and the noobs were completely phased out by 5.12. So, that's really only a season and a half, with shared narratives and 4 years of experienced production staff.

 

The original kids had 3 seasons of that mess, PLUS 2 summers of a national tour. They had like a 2 week break from Glee, post-tour but pre-filming. And there was no split narrative to share the load, and they were also there at the apex of when RIB+ actually gave a fuck about the quality of the show, so there was a lot more effort, and I'm sure some growing pains as well, as production figured out the most efficient ways to use their workhorses.

You don't know that. That's an assumption. What not an assumption is that the original cast get credit for all their hard work, no matter how badly it turned out. While they newbies could work their ass of and no matter how good it was they got no credit, or their would be complaints an original member of the cast could do it better.

Funny thing is they've proved it was them in season 4. We've had a season pretty much focused on nothing but Rachel and the ratings are the lowest they've ever been. So much for the magic of the originals.

[fakeempress]

In relation to the amount of work they had to do vs what they were paid, there was this part of Chris's second Emmy roundtable. NPH openly rolled his eyes, while Chris and Joel McHale were poker facing. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by fakeempress

[Ceeg]

Nothing in my post is an assumption, except the part about growing pains BTS and experience bringing efficiency (although I think that's a legit assumption to make).

 

It's a fact that in season 4, there were split narratives. It's a fact that in season 5, NYC had a bigger share of the narrative than it did in season 5. It's a fact that Lima and the new kids were phased out after 5.12. It's a fact that the new kids were only on the show for a season and a half, while the original kids were in one single narrative for 3 years. It's a fact that the originals went on 2 summer tours, and didn't get a true summer break until after season 3. It's a fact that there were only a couple of weeks off post-tour and pre-production.

 

Saying that the original kids had longer hours and worked extremely hard isn't taking anything away from the Noobs and whatever hours and work they might have put into the show. 

 

Also you equating S4 ratings (noobs) with S6 ratings (Rachel) is flawed. Britney/Brittany was one of the highest rated Glee episodes ever, and I don't think anyone is saying that's because Heather got the focus, and that proves all episodes should be Brittany-centered.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ceeg

[jaytee1812]

I get that you might love the newbies more than the original cast but to keep acting like they had NOTHING to do with the success of Glee is unbelievable to me.

Then they are also responsible for its decline.

I'm not criticising their performances but the actors that kept producing this material without criticism are responsible for what the show has become. Maybe if they had stood up to those in charge the show wouldn't be as bad as it is.

The cast of NCIS lead a revolt against their EP in season 4 of their show. He lost his job, they're on season 12 and NCIS is the most watched drama in the world.

[Ann Mack]

Then they are also responsible for its decline.

I'm not criticising their performances but the actors that kept producing this material without criticism are responsible for what the show has become. Maybe if they had stood up to those in charge the show wouldn't be as bad as it is.

The cast of NCIS lead a revolt against their EP in season 4 of their show. He lost his job, they're on season 12 and NCIS is the most watched drama in the world.

 

Seriously, stand up. They don't nor have they ever wrote for the show (with the exception of Chris who actually did a better job than the hired writers). So how do you "stand up" and object to the writing of S1 when its the premiere season. It is stated even when they made suggestions around season 2 or 3 because they understood their own characters they were either shot down or almost ignored or belittled in the script. Jane Lynch a seasoned actor with a lot of credentials even commented that you can "tell when RM is upset with someone because its reflected in the script". So I wouldn't really expect 23 year olds or younger actors to stand up to Ryan Murphy when it seems that even Jane Lynch knew how he would react.

[camussie]

The newbies would've had those hours and those conditions without any of the credit that goes with it. To somehow suggest that the original cast is somehow put upon because they were part of the original success is ridiculous.

 

 

While the newbies worked hard they didn't have the same grueling schedule the original cast did in the first couple of seasons or even in season 3.  I say in the first couple of seasons because by season 3 RM & team deliberately cut down on the number of group scenes in order to streamline filming.  At least according to one interview Lea did where she remarked she was glad there were less group scenes because it shortened their hours.   

 

Then there is the point Ceeg made - that for the most part the newbies were always sharing an narrative.  Again this isn't to take away from their hard work but there is no denying that they didn't have to carry the load the original cast did in the those first 2-3 seasons.

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[shantown]

Funny thing is they've proved it was them in season 4. We've had a season pretty much focused on nothing but Rachel and the ratings are the lowest they've ever been. So much for the magic of the originals.

1) The magic of the originalS, not one original cast member

2) It's been said several times that the focus on this character or that character was not the reason for the downfall of season 4 (and beyond). The split narrative was a terrible idea and both sides suffered for it. The writing was terrible. The plots were repetitive and poorly done. There was a lot more to it than one character.

Edited March 11, 2015 by shantown

[SevenStars]

Then they are also responsible for its decline.

 

I actually think they ARE the reason Glee didn't decline as fast because most of the fans who kept watching the show did that, not because of great writing but because of their love for the cast and characters. I know that along the way most fans could no longer keep watching for them, especially when the writers and TPTB started treating some of them so badly, despite the fact the they acknowledged these problems in their stupid meta. I know that I had to force myself to keep watching the show in S3 for the original cast because the writing was so bad to me. That's why when most of them left in S4, I stopped watching the show and only came back when I heard they were coming back. But there were some episodes they were in and I missed, because unless you are part of the fandom or following Glee news, you won't know when the originals are coming. 

 

 

I'm not criticising their performances but the actors that kept producing this material without criticism are responsible for what the show has become. Maybe if they had stood up to those in charge the show wouldn't be as bad as it is.

The cast of NCIS lead a revolt against their EP in season 4 of their show. He lost his job, they're on season 12 and NCIS is the most watched drama in the world.

 

 

I assuming that NCIS was not the first real acting jobs most of the cast had? That would factor greatly in their confidence to stand-up to the writers.  The amount of power this writer had would also factor into them doing this. They are also older than the original Glee cast who were mostly in their early 20's, and in their first acting job.

 

All these things are factors that makes it impossible to do a comparison between these two cast. 

 

To me, the Glee cast standing up to RIB would have been like the GA cast standing up to Shonda Rhimes, it wouldn't have work unless the writers were willing to listen because these writers had too much power within the network and in the industry. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by SevenStars

[jaytee1812]

1) The magic of the originalS, not one original cast member

2) It's been said several times that the focus on this character or that character was not the reason for the downfall of season 4 (and beyond). The split narrative was a terrible idea and both sides suffered for it. The writing was terrible. The plots were repetitive and poorly done. There was a lot more to it than one character.

They've all been back this season. Apart from one episode it's been all about them. That what's fans have been clamouring for, that it would be much better without the new cast, especially Melissa. That's all I heard during season 4 and 5, well apparently that's not true.

Don't get me wrong the original cast are very talented, but as I said on the media thread if they are responsible for the shows success, they are responsible for its decline.

[camussie]

The cast of NCIS lead a revolt against their EP in season 4 of their show. He lost his job, they're on season 12 and NCIS is the most watched drama in the world.

 

 

Not the cast as much as Mark Harmon meaning, while the entire cast had issues with the production schedule, Mark Harmon was the one who wielded the power BTS to get changes made.  Given that NCIS has always been a Mark Harmon vehicle and he had years of successful TV under his belt he had quite a bit more power BTS than the relatively unknown cast of Glee.  There is also the cast of Glee did get some changes made - they put their foot down about no more tours.

 

Don't get me wrong the original cast are very talented, but as I said on the media thread if they are responsible for the shows success, they are responsible for its decline.

 

 

I have seen one or two people say the original cast is the sole reason for the show's success.  What people are saying is they were a factor which is why RM thinking it was his "brilliant" writing alone that made Glee annoying.  He truly seemed to think he made one generation of glee stars in that choir room, by god he could make another.  Well he couldn't.  Mainly because the writing didn't support it but also because the second generation cast didn't seem to catch on with the viewing public like the first generation did.  

 

Finally boiling down Glee's fast rise and rapid decline to one factor is way too simplistic.  It also sets up a strawman that most people discussing this issue haven't ascribed to.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[SevenStars]

They've all been back this season. Apart from one episode it's been all about them. That what's fans have been clamouring for, that it would be much better without the new cast, especially Melissa. That's all I heard during season 4 and 5, well apparently that's not true.

 

So Quinn, Puck, Mercedes, Artie, Santana, Brittany, Tina,  and (RIP Finn) have all been in every episodes this season except for ONE episode ? So I guess I'm watching a different Glee because the only original character who has been in every episode this season is Rachel. Damn, I wish I was watching your Glee, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it instead of disliking it, 

[jaytee1812]

I

I assuming that NCIS was not the first real acting jobs most of the cast had? That would factor greatly in their confidence to stand-up to the writers.  The amount of power this writer had would also factor into them doing this. They are also older than the original Glee cast where mostly in their early 20's, in their first acting job.

 

All these things are factors that makes it impossible to do a comparison of between these two cast. 

 

To me the Glee cast standing up to RIB would have been like the GA cast standing up to Shonda Rhimes, it wouldn't have work unless the writers were willing to listen because these writers had too much power.

If everyone does it they have to listen, and if you don't stand up you're are responsible for what's left. So it is partly their fault.

[Ceeg]

If everyone does it they have to listen, and if you don't stand up you're are responsible for what's left. So it is partly their fault.

 

I'm not sure you understand the power that Ryan Murphy has. He's the gay mafia. He could have had these random 20-something, fresh face kids fired and blacklisted from a fuckload of shit. No one wants to work with a little brat who challenges authority without any sort of experience or wisdom to back it up.

[jaytee1812]

So Quinn, Puck, Mercedes, Artie, Santana, Brittany, Tina,  and (RIP Finn) have all been in every episodes this season except for ONE episode ? So I guess I'm watching a different Glee because the only original character who has been in every episode this season is Rachel. Damn, I wish I was watching your Glee, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it instead of disliking it,

No, every episode except the one with the annoying child have all been about original characters. Well I assume I've only watched bits. The last full episode I watched was New Directions. I watched a show about a talented high school glee club, not a bunch of awful people 'taking New York' or three girls and a bunch of talentless boys in glee club while graduates dick about their high school.