All Episodes Talk: Breadstix

[camussie]

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.

 

 

Okay.  Going by that theory then it was also partly the newbies fault that they didn't stand up in season 4 as Glee ratings continued to decline.  After all they should have stood up and forced RM & team to write a better show.  

 

Although really none of this applies if people want to compare Glee to NCIS.  Mark Harmon didn't force DpB out over the quality of the writing.   He forced him out over the insane production schedule.  The Glee cast also set their foot down regarding the insane production schedule - they said no more tours.  Also RM & team cut down on the group scenes.  Don't know if that was in response to the complaints about production schedule or not but it was a change.  

 

That leads me to ask where is this argument coming from well the Glee cast should have stood up to RM regarding the quality of the writing because hey they did that on NCIS when the creator of the show was forced out?  As I pointed out above no they didn't.  That change was about the production schedule.   Now a couple of years ago (9 or so years into NCIS run) MW said he talked to the writers about toning down Tony's as comedic fodder.

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[SevenStars]

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.

 

Why should they listen to them ? What legal power do they have ? They signed an ACTING contract, therefore, that is all the network is expecting and want for them. If they all stand-up and the network side with RIB (which they are more likely to do because of RIB previous success), and refused to work. The network will sue them for millions of dollars that they DON'T have. They might never get a chance to really work in the industry anymore because in their FIRST job, they revolted, so future employers will assumed that there was something wrong with THEM, not the writing that caused the problem. They would have nothing to hand to future employers to show that they are really good workers, and that what happened on the Glee set was something they felt they had to do because of how bad the writing was. 

 

You honestly think these early 20's something young people should have commit potential career suicide and put themselves in debt when the network sue them, ALL in the name of  making sure the show doesn't decline due to bad writing? When they were just entering the industry and weren't expert in what would make a successful show? Okay, I don't know about you, but that is so unrealistic and stupid, I would have no sympathy for them if they had been THAT stupid. 

[jaytee1812]

Okay.  Going by that theory then it was also partly the newbies fault that they didn't stand up in season 4 as Glee ratings continued to decline.  After all they should have stood up and forced RM & team to write a better show.

How do we know they didn't? They were all fired.

[shoregirl]

They are not writing the episodes, directing, they don't pick out the songs. How is this even partly their faults. Perhaps people did like I did during the split and never watched live. That way I could watch the characters I liked and if they were not in a episode (to this day I still don't get how you have a breakup episode then not even show Kurt or Rachel the episode after) I didn't bother to watch. And perhaps some just stopped watching because the focus on characters they didn't care about. I am not blaming the newbies but i dont get blaming actors for a show going down hill.

[jaytee1812]

Why should they listen to them ? What legal power do they have ? They signed an ACTING contract, therefore, that is all the network is expecting and want for them. If they all stand-up and the network side with RIB (which they are more likely to do because of RIB previous success), and refused to work. The network will sue them for millions of dollars that they DON'T have. They might never get a chance to really work in the industry anymore because in their FIRST job, they revolted, so future employers will assumed that there was something wrong with THEM, not the writing that caused the problem. They would have nothing to hand to future employers to show that they are really good workers, and that what happened on the Glee set was something they felt they had to do because of how bad the writing was. 

 

You honestly think these early 20's something young people should have commit potential career suicide and put themselves in debt when the network sue them, ALL in the name of  making sure the show doesn't decline due to bad writing? When they were just entering the industry and weren't expert in what would make a successful show? Okay, I don't know about you, but that is so unrealistic and stupid, I would have no sympathy for them if they had been THAT stupid.

I'm not saying they had to do it but their bear their responsibility for what happened when they didn't. So it is partly their fault the show sucks.

[camussie]

I'm not saying they had to do it but their bear their responsibility for what happened when they didn't. So it is partly their fault the show sucks.

 

 

And you used a false premise to make that argument - that the cast of NCIS stood up on their show regrading the quality of writing and look it is now 12 years in.  If only the cast of Glee had done the same maybe Glee wouldn't have declined so.  As I pointed out the cast of NCIS, with Mark Harmon leading the charge, did not stand up regarding the quality of the writing.  Mark Harmon made a stand against the production schedule and as a result the creator of the show was forced out after season 4.  

 

Well the cast of Glee also made a stand against the production schedule - they said no more tours so while they didn't got as far as Mark Harmon (nor did they have the power to) they too made a stand against the production schedule.  

 

How do we know they didn't? They were all fired.

 

 

That is quite the assumption.  You think they fired all of the newbies and shut down Lima because the newbies stood up to RM & team about their crap writing?  Occam's razor says they shut down Lima because, due to rapidly declining ratings, there was no longer the budget to sustain two narratives.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[Ceeg]

I don't even understand how this conversation about the original kids putting in 18 hour days, with 2 weeks off all year, for 3 years, turned into a discussion about them being responsible for the writing and ratings because they never staged a revolt. It's the definition of a strawman argument. 

[SevenStars]

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.

 

Again, no one credit a specific original character in helping Glee be successful. If you noticed, most of us who have been discussing this said " ORIGINALS", not Rachel or Kurt or Sam or Blaine, who are the only original characters who have been in most of the episodes this season. We are talking about the group, just like I'm assuming you are talking the group when you talk about the newbies and not just Kitty or Unique. 

[jaytee1812]

And you used a false premise to make that argument - that the cast of NCIS stood up on their show regrading the quality of writing and look it is now 12 years in.  If only the Glee had done the same maybe Glee wouldn't have declined so.  As I pointed out the cast of NCIS, with Mark Harmon leading the charge, did not stand up regarding the quality of the writing.  Mark Harmon made a stand against the production schedule and as a result the creator of the show was forced out after season 4.

 

It wasn't just the production schedule. One example I recall is they never had completed scripts, ever.

Point remains that the EP lost his job.

I get the argument that Mark Harmon was in a more powerful situation. Couldn't the same be said of Jane Lynch.

 

 

Well the cast of Glee also made a stand against the production schedule - they said no more tours.

Good. Can they stop whining about being overworked then?

We are talking about the group, just like I'm assuming you are talking the group when you talk about the newbies and not just Kitty or Unique.

If I talk about the newbies I mean Marley, Jake, Ryder and Kitty. Unique wasn't a newbie in season 4, she joined in season 3.

[caracas1914]

I think something is partially lost in this Originals versus Noob debates, and that is that what Ryan Murphy and company did with Glee was fairly unprecedented.  He VOLUNTARILY replaced most of his lead characters in one fell swoop.  The only  one he didn't , namely Lea Michele, suddenly was in the minor narrative and out of the main action for most of Season 4.  Her screen time and song distribution  went way down.  We weren't talking about a struggling show where  known names were brought in to boost it (Melrose  Place and Heather Locklear) but an established hit show where Ryan Murphy wanted to REPLACE his lead actors who were still under fucking contract and with whom he had no contract dispute with unknown  and unproven new actors. 

 

That is unheard of in American Network TV on a scripted  hit TV show with a regular order of 22 episodes.

 

American Network TV isn't Canada's DeGrassi.  The model isn't the same . Nor is it British TV shows, nor Mexican telenovelas.   I'm not saying it's better or worse, it's just different.    And prior ensemble  TV shows like "LOST", "ER", "GREY"S ANATOMY" with revolving cast the comparison doesn't also hold up either because the core of main leading characters within that group essentially remain intact.

 

Now where American TV is forced to get new leads, they will do it.  That happens with contract disputes (David Caruso after one year in NYPD Blues, Suzanne Sommers in 3's Company) tragic death (John Ritter) expired contracts (George Clooney in "ER") or fuckups (Charlie Sheen "21/2" Men".

 

The reason you don't change most of  your leading characters after  just 3 seasons is that it's a hell of a risk and the GA has expectations (at least American GA) of what to see on TV screen, plus it's a crap shoot to get a hit TV show on air to begin with. Why FUCK UP: that much with the mix?

It's like "FRIENDS" replacing the lead characters after 3 seasons and keeping the "formula" intact, well it doesn't matter how much you think Jennifer Anniston, Matthew Perry, Courney Cox, etc contributed to the formula, they were PART of the formula.  

 

Once Glee mixed it up that MUCH, all bets were off.

 

Now I agree that even if the Core Cast had remained, the shitty writing most likely would have continued, but mixing up the cast so drastically certainly didn't hep matters at all.

Edited March 11, 2015 by caracas1914

[camussie]

It wasn't just the production schedule. One example I recall is they never had completed scripts, ever.

 

 

Not having completed scripts and making last minute changes is mostly about the production schedule.  It made the days at NCIS much longer than they had to be. I can't recall Mark Harmon ever saying the scripts themselves were of low quality - just that they got them last minute and the days were much longer than they had to be.

 

Point remains that the EP lost his job.

 

 

DpB did not have another show on the CBS networks when Mark Harmon finally made his stand about the production schedule (2 years after one of the original cast quit due to it I might add).  RM did.  The glee cast put their feet down about tours after the second one in summer 2011 and that fall is when AHS started airing on FX.  Even if Fox completely agreed with them that something needed to change, there was no way they were going to sour their working relationship with RM by forcing him out of Glee like CBS soured their relationship with DpB by forcing him off of NCIS.  That decision came down to who did CBS value more - Mark Harmon or DpB?  The answer was Mark Harmon.  If we ask the same question of Glee - the answer is obvious - RM.  After all he is the one continuing his relationship with Fox.  The cast isn't.

 

Good. Can they stop whining about being overworked then?

 

 

I haven't seen any recent interviews where the cast has complained about being overworked.  Even Dianna's interview was about the first 2-3 seasons of Glee.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[SevenStars]

I'm not saying they had to do it but their bear their responsibility for what happened when they didn't. So it is partly their fault the show sucks.

 

I would agree with you, if it wouldn't have been an unrealistic and stupid action on their part. If the network wouldn't have had the power to force them back into work with the same bad writing. If we know that them standing up to the writers would have actually done something to prevent the bad writing, since most of them were not writers and didn't know what type of writing would keep the show successful ( even the most season script writers don't know this), I will assume, them standing up to the writers would have done NOTHING. It would have been arrogant and stupid of them to believe that they, who just enter the industry, who never been in a successful show or write successful show before, could tell RIB who had successful before Glee, what would keep Glee successful. 

 

You really are asking and expecting the actors to have done something stupid in order to prove your point that they were not more important to the success of Glee, then the newbies. Since they didn't make a stupid decision that could have hurt them for yrs/decade, you are trying to blame them for something that they had NO power over. 

 

I get that you love the newbies more than the originals but what you are saying and suggesting is just unbelievable to me. 

[jaytee1812]

I

I get that you love the newbies more than the originals but what you are saying and suggesting is just unbelievable to me.

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true. I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit.

[SevenStars]

 

It wasn't just the production schedule. One example I recall is they never had completed scripts, ever.

Point remains that the EP lost his job.

I get the argument that Mark Harmon was in a more powerful situation. Couldn't the same be said of Jane Lynch.

 

 

From what I'm gathering they didn't lose their job because the script wasn't completed or the writing was bad ( the reason you said the Glee cast should have stood against the writers), they lost it because they couldn't keep up with the writing of the scripts in a way that would cause production schedule to be good. Most network will back-up an argument like this because less production, less hrs/days of work means they save money. The only time they won't side with that is if means they will be going up against a powerful writer they would like to keep on their sides. That's why when KH complained about production hrs, the network didn't do anything or say anything about that because they didn't want side with her against Shonda Rhimes. She was successful proving writer, no matter how bad her production schedule was.

 

 

Good. Can they stop whining about being overworked then?

 

How are they whining about ? Diana and all cast who talk about the schedule are asked this question and they answered it honestly. Or would you rather they lie about it so that they won't seem to be " whining" about it. 

[fakeempress]

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true. I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit.

Yes but you misplace the blame for what are purely writing and production decisions from the producers and network's shoulders onto the original cast, suggesting the original cast should have revolted, and you wildly assume they then would've gotten what NCIS got. You can't make those assumptions, totally different situations. There is no comparing the power Mark Harmon has as the leading man and face of his show, buttressed by NCIS monster ratings and revenues, with anyone on the cast of Glee. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by fakeempress

[caracas1914]

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true.

 

However Tina/Jenna was minor supporting character at best the first 3 years, as was Heather Morris, Chord Overstreet, well Darren was at least a juke box "lead": singer as far as lead character.   The difference was that in Season 4 all those actors/characters were materially  thrust into more of  leading roles ( the only one who seemed to shrink or stay the same was Kevin McHale as Artie).   Rachel, Finn, Kurt , Santana all got reduced as far as being lead characters on the show,  So the mix of even Original characters changed in complexity who got consistent SL focus.  IN NY Lea got SL, but Kurt and Santana were sidelined (and in hindsight never really recovered what they had).

 

Season 4 was different, for large swaths of the season, for example, Heather Morris sang in MORE songs than Lea Michelle, and it became essentially the Blee/Blam/Noob show.    The cast receiving SL  screentime was a hell of a lot different then the first 3 years.

Edited March 11, 2015 by caracas1914

[SNeaker]

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true. I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit.

 

Credit for what, though? You can't give them credit for something they never accomplished. They were not successful replacements for the original cast. I am sure they worked hard, and I honestly feel bad for them since I feel they were...not so much miscast, as doomed to fail thanks to the writing, the characters they were hired to play, and the entire "chuck the known cast, bring in newbies" disaster.

 

The original cast gets credit for helping make the show a success because it was a success and they deserve the credit for being a reason for that success. Not the only reason, but certainly not irrelevant.

[camussie]

There is no comparing the power Mark Harmon has as the leading man and face of his show, buttressed by NCIS monster ratings and revenues, with anyone on the cast of Glee.

 

 

And once again, even if the cast had Mark Harmon's power, Mark Harmon didn't make a stand regarding the quality of the writing.  He made a stand regarding the production schedule - a stand the cast of Glee made as well.  Not to the extent of MH but they made it.  

 

I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit 

 

 

I think that there are only one or two people who are making it this black and white.  Most are saying that the original cast was a big factor in the show's success and RM was wrong to discount that when he decided that by god he made one generation of Glee stars in that choir room, he could do it again.  Well he couldn't.  Mainly because the writing wasn't there and, as talented as some of the newbies were, they simply didn't catch on with the public like many in the original cast.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[Ceeg]

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true. I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit.

 

Credit for what? This whole conversation started because someone said that they appreciate all the work the original cast put in at the beginning. It literally has nothing to do with the new kids. 

[jaytee1812]

Yes but you misplace the blame for what are purely writing and production decisions from the producers and network's shoulders onto the original cast, suggesting the original cast should have revolted, and you wildly assume they then would've gotten what NCIS got. You can't make those assumptions, totally different situations. There is no comparing the power Mark Harmon has as the leading man and face of his show, buttressed by NCIS monster ratings and revenues, with anyone on the cast of Glee.

Any television show is a group effort. Writers, producers, directors, actors, and on this show, musicians, dancers etc. when it's good everyone should get the credit. When it's bad everyone should have the responsibility. It seems to me the originals get some sort of pass on that, and they shouldn't.

Especially when they've been trying to sell us on how wonderful this last season of Glee is.

[caracas1914]

It seems to me the originals get some sort of pass on that, and they shouldn't.

 

They don't write the scripts.

 

IMO Jane Lynch is a wonderful comic actress,  I think she does miracles acting wise with the character of Coach Sue, and while I am fucking tired of the character and how she's used, I don't see why Jane  should get the blame for the shitty scripts and characterization.  She has to work with what's given to her.

[SevenStars]

I'm the biggest Tina/Jenna stan on this forum so that's not true. I just think the originals get all of the credit and none of the flak while the newbies get all of the flak and none of the credit.

 

You being a Tina/Jenna stan doesn't mean that you don't prefer the newbies over the original cast, especially since Tina/Jenna got a lot of screen-time during the newbie period, unlike the originals time period.

 

The originals get all the credit because they were part of the formula when the show was a success. So to me, not giving them credit for that success seems wrong to me. I'm not saying they were the ONLY reason for that success but they help the show become a success. 

 

The newbies don't get that credit because they came during the time when the show was declining and when they came, it didn't get better. It actually got worst. So people associate the decline with them, and none of the success with them because they WEREN'T there doing the successful phase of the show. If they were, or if the show had become successful after they came, no matter how bad the writing or production was, they would have gotten credit for it. 

 

So you are expecting people to give the newbies credit for the success of the show when they weren't their during that time and nothing improved with them coming aboard, that to me is stupid and wrong, because that would be misplaced credit. 

 

As for the flake, everyone get flakes when a show is declining instead of growing, it's like that for every show and every cast. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by SevenStars

[SNeaker]

If I felt the acting had taken a nosedive along with the writing (as does happen), I'd agree. But the job of the actors is only to act, and as far as I can see, the actors are still bringing it whenever they're allowed to actually be onscreen. They still elevate the writing as best they can most of the time. But they're not magicians. There's only so much shit they can spin to gold.

[jaytee1812]

If I felt the acting had taken a nosedive along with the writing (as does happen), I'd agree. But the job of the actors is only to act, and as far as I can see, the actors are still bringing it whenever they're allowed to actually be onscreen. They still elevate the writing as best they can most of the time. But they're not magicians. There's only so much shit they can spin to gold.

Really. Cos they all look like they've checked out and gone home this season from what I've seen. Which granted isn't much. They sure ain't trying with the singing either.

[jaytee1812]

You being a Tina/Jenna stan doesn't mean that you don't prefer the newbies over the original cast, especially since Tina/Jenna got a lot of screen-time during the newbie period, unlike the originals time period.

 

The originals get all the credit because they were part of the formula when the show was a success. So to me, not giveing them credit for that success seems wrong to me. I'm not saying they were the ONLY reason for that success but they help the show become a success. 

 

The newbies don't get that credit because they came during the time when the show was declining and when they came, it didn't get better. It actually got worst. So people associate the decline with them, and none of the success with them because they WEREN'T there doing the successful phase of the show. If they were, or if they show had become successful after they came, no matter how bad the writing or production was, they would have gotten credit for it. 

 

So you are expecting people to give the newbies credit for the success of the show when they weren't their during that time and nothing improved with them coming aboard, that to me is stupid and wrong, because that would be misplaced credit. 

 

As for the flake, everyone get flakes when a show is declining instead of growing, it's like that for every show and every cast.

Put it this way if I could drop any members of the Glee cast into a volcano it would be Darren Criss and Chord Overstreet and they got more screen time during season 4. They're the majority of the reason it was so bad.

The newbies don't get any credit for any decent performances on this show. For most glee fans all four can't sing, dance or act. (I'll concede it's a fair point with Melissa on the dancing part).

I've never seen anyone, except me, criticise the originals on this show for what it's become. That's my problem, they get a huge pass.

[fakeempress]

Any television show is a group effort. Writers, producers, directors, actors, and on this show, musicians, dancers etc. when it's good everyone should get the credit. When it's bad everyone should have the responsibility. It seems to me the originals get some sort of pass on that, and they shouldn't.

Especially when they've been trying to sell us on how wonderful this last season of Glee is.

I'm not following at all. How are the Glee actors decision makers pray tell? What kind of responsibility can they take about the creative decisions on the show? When they tried to be decision makers and provided input such as Dianna by all accounts voicing her dissatisfaction with the way Quinn was written in Season 3, she got the boot. Cory I think was referenced as leading the original cast complaints about being overworked with the tours on top of everything. That's as much as they could've possibly done, save from walking out en masse. 

 

 

I've never seen anyone, except me, criticise the originals on this show for what it's become. That's my problem, they get a huge pass.

Because people are aware that the original cast themselves don't write the scripts and don't take the production decisions, so that they can be the reason why the show declined. It's a huge misplacement of responsibility from the actual powers that be onto the actors, old and new alike.

 

And about what started this conversation -- the old cast was overworked, and when the new cast was added, both groups had a relatively lighter schedule -- it's a statement of fact and shouldn't be taken as a value judgement on either group. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by fakeempress

[camussie]

I don't blame the originals for what the show has become - mainly because I think that blame falls entirely with the dumb decisions RM & team and Fox have made over the years.  

• The originals are not responsible for the stupid decision to degrade Will's role if there was always a plan to keep the choir room either in the form of Glee and a Glee spin-off that focused on the grads or in the form of a split narrative.  As far as I am concerned this was Glee's "original sin" (no pun intended).
• The originals aren't responsible for RM/Fox trying to split the baby all in the hopes of franchising Glee via that choir room
• The originals aren't responsible for RM & team's inability to write a coherent narrative for more than 13 episodes, if that.

 

Likewise I don't blame the newbies for any of that.  The bad writing and even worse structuring was on RM & team and Fox.  Not the originals nor the newbies.

 

Where I do think they are all open to criticism is on what they bring to the show and I have seen the following in regards to the originals

• Criticism of Lea's, Chord's, Cory's, etc dancing
• Criticism of Heather's, Chord's, Darren's, etc acting including people saying they think Chris has checked out.
• Criticism of Lea & Amber belting when it isn;t needed.  Criticism of Cory and Chord's weak voices, etc

 

As far as decent performances - that is all in the eye of the beholder.  For example, if someone doesn't like Melissa's singing they won't like Marley's performance.  That isn't saying she didn't work hard to put together that performance but rather someone didn't like it.  This also touches on something said in the other thread.  I have never seen people questioning the newbies "work ethic."  What i have seen is people saying they didn't have the same insane schedule the originals did in the first 2-3 seasons.  That is simply fact.  By season 4 none of the actors had the same insane schedule they did in seasons 1-3

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[SevenStars]

The newbies don't get any credit for any decent performances on this show. For most glee fans all four can't sing, dance or act. (I'll concede it's a fair point with Melissa on the dancing part).

 

I can't give them credit for their performances because I bailed on Glee, the minute I heard that most of the original cast wouldn't be coming back except as guests, and when I heard most of them get nothing much when they do come back.  So I was done with Glee, and only saw a few clips of the originals during that time. So I can't and will never give the newbies credit because I was not there to see their performances. Most of the general audience who left Glee in drove after S3 will never give them credit because like me, they weren't there to see them. So the only cast they will give credit is the original cast because they were there to watch the original cast perform. That's why the media give the original cast the credits, because they know that most of the general audience only saw the original cast perform, not the newbies. 

 

This is also why you never see me talk about the newbies except for maybe Unique. I don't praise them or criticize them because for me, they don't exist since I never actually watched them unless they were in clips with the original characters I love.

 

I've never seen anyone, except me, criticise the originals on this show for what it's become. That's my problem, they get a huge pass.

 

 

We don't criticize them because we KNOW they don't write the crap that is on our screen. That their only power is to not sign a contract, therefore, they don't have to act out the bad writing and they won't be sue for money they don't have. 

 

We give them a pass because they are the only reason most of us are STILL watching this show despite how crapping the writing is.

Edited March 11, 2015 by SevenStars

[jaytee1812]

I can't give them credit for their performances because I bailed on Glee, the minute I heard that most of the original cast wouldn't be coming back except as guests, and when I heard most of them get nothing much when they do come back.  So I was done with Glee, and only saw a few clips of the originals during that time. So I can't and will never give the newbies credit because I was not there to see their performances. Most of the general audience who left Glee in drove after S3 will never give them credit because like me, they weren't there to see them. So the only cast they will give credit is the original cast because they were there to watch the original cast perform. That's why the media give the original cast the credits, because they know that most of the general audience only saw the original cast perform, not the newbies. 

 

This is also why you never see me talk about the newbies except for maybe Unique. I don't praise them or criticize them because for me,they don't exist since I never actually watched them unless they were in clips with the originals character.

Plenty of people who did watch season 4 don't give them any credit. They will criticise when it's uncalled for.

[camussie]

Who is the arbiter of what is called for an uncalled for though?  If someone doesn't like the newbies they don't like the newbies.  Likewise if someone doesn't like one or more of the original cast they don't like them.  For example I found Marley to be a wet noodle of a character.  That was mostly the writing but Melissa's take was also a small part of it.  Likewise I think Kurt comes across as a holier-than-thou oh-so-above-it-all annoyance most of the time which is also mostly on the writing but partly on how Chris plays the character.

 

I guess I just don't understand what you expect from people regarding the newbies.  To praise them even if they didn't like the characters?  To give them credit for Glee's success even though they weren't part of Glee's successful period?  I give them credit for coming in and doing their jobs but I am certainly not going to say they were part of Glee's huge success because the simple fact is they weren't.

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[SNeaker]

The newbies don't get any credit for any decent performances on this show. For most glee fans all four can't sing, dance or act. (I'll concede it's a fair point with Melissa on the dancing part).

 

The criticism I generally see of the newbies is not that they were completely untalented, but that they were bland. That they lacked charisma, comic timing, an "it factor," quirkiness, and really anything to distinguish them as special and unique in some way. They seemed liked characters from an entirely different show -- a much more muted, straight up teen melodrama like "Degrassi" than a black comedy like Glee. They just didn't work. The actors themselves? Sure, they could sing/act/dance to varying levels, but they were bland characters given bland storylines played by very "straight" actors. Though Becca and Alex did catch on quite a bit more than the other three, precisely, I believe, because their characters had an edge or something new to bring to the table.

 

Personal preference is personal preference, but then there are also facts with regards to which cast was on the show when it was successful and gained a following and which did not. I may hate Blaine, I may have never understood Darren's appeal, I may have been completely resentful when he made such a sensation...but I can't deny he made that sensation. I can't deny he is popular, has a big fan following, and made waves for the show. It may have been to my utter befuddlement and consternation, but I still can't deny the facts on the ground.

Edited March 11, 2015 by SNeaker

[fakeempress]

Plenty of people who did watch season 4 don't give them any credit. They will criticise when it's uncalled for.

I don't think the newbies as actors aren't given credit where credit's due. The criticisms that I know have been overwhelmingly for the characters they play (like calling them 2.0 versions), which is criticism directed at the the producers. People sometimes say "the newbies" meaning the characters, and you may think they mean the actors. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by fakeempress

[Ceeg]

Plenty of people who did watch season 4 don't give them any credit. They will criticise when it's uncalled for.

 

I still fail to see what kind of "credit" you expect us to give them. I don't think anyone has said any of the new kids were terrible at their jobs or were so awful that they should never work again or whatever other hyperbolic statements you think people have made. Most complaints I saw were that they hated the v2.0 characters, the group never gelled the way the original kids did, there was no spark, and also why the eff are they getting so much screen time when all the characters the audience knows are still contracted yet rarely on screen.

 

The funny thing is that the FOX promo department realized that last point, too. I remember after 4.04 aired, the next episode was a ALL LIMA episode, but after 4.04 was done and it was time for the next week's promo, FOX aired a promo for 4.06, Glease, which featured various original cast members.  

 

As far as giving credit goes, I don't know what I'm supposed to say about the new kids. The show was on a downward slump by the time they appeared, and it just kept going lower and lower.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ceeg

[SevenStars]

Plenty of people who did watch season 4 don't give them any credit. They will criticise when it's uncalled for.

 They don't like them but so what? All the Glee cast get criticize by some in the fandom because what people like and enjoy is base on their own preference. They might not think there is any credit to give for their performances. 

 

Since you were the one who mention the cast leading a revolt against the writers, here is an article that talked about that, but this is a gossip magazine, so I would suggest you take the info with a grain of salt:

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/how-ryan-murphy-torments-the-glee-cast-2011912

 

How Ryan Murphy Torments the Glee Cast

DEC. 9, 2011 AT 10:45AM BY ZACH JOHNSON

 

Ryan Murphy isn't exactly the most popular guy at McKinley High.

The 46-year-old Glee co-creator is making life miserable for the cast of the hit FOX show, multiple insiders tell the new issue of Us Weekly (out now).

 

 

"Things are really bad on set," a show source says. "The cast talks about how much they love Ryan, but they have grown to hate him."

Explains another, "He has bad mood swings and can be really mean."

 

Harry Shum Jr., 29, who plays Mike Chang, recently admitted to Us that "the 16-hour days are a bit rough." The brutal work schedule has gotten so bad that a source says Lea Michele, 25, is taking action.

 

"The cast bas been speaking about banding together against him, and Lea is leading the charge." (Michele's rep denies any friction.)

Confronting Murphy can have its repercussions, as Michele learned when she told Murphy she didn't want to go on the cast's 2011 multi-city summer tour (for which they had only four days to rehearse).

 

"He asked her which of her friends she wanted him to fire," says an insider (a claim Michele's rep denies). His implied target: powerhouse vocalist Amber Riley, 25, "because she's one of Lea's closet friends."

 

That's not the only point of contention. Despite Glee's massive success, the cast doesn't see a dime from the shows iTunes sales and were all denied raises for the current season

 

 

Edited March 11, 2015 by SevenStars

[Myrna123]

Plenty of people who did watch season 4 don't give them any credit. They will criticise when it's uncalled for.

How come you get to be the arbiter of what criticism is called for. Most Glee viewers thinking the newbies were bad singers, dancers and actors and that they ruined the show is just as viable an opinion as your thinking they're the greatest performers who ever lived.

[Hana Chan]

I think that the noobs got saddled with an impossible task - taking over the burden of carrying the show after some genius decided to dump most of the original cast in one mass culling. That was going to be a huge leap for any of the new cast to have to handle. You had an audience that wanted to see their favorites and were already primed to reject the new characters. That got compounded with the lack of any real heavy hitters left in the McKinley storyline (since Darren, Chord and Heather were just not capable of handling being the new leads) to give them something to build on.

 

Then you had the crap writing. Most of the noobs felt pretty recycled from earlier characters. Marley was Rachel's talent and ambition, but stripped of her drive and spunk. Ryder was Finn 3.0. Jake was Puck without his charisma or vulnerability. I liked Unique (primarily because I liked the actor) but she ended being a cross between Mercedes and Kurt much of the time. The one noob that managed to grow outside of her original template (bitchy cheerleader in the Quinn/Santana mold) was Kitty (which is why she survived for season six).

 

To cap that off, they kept a few of the strongest originals (Finn, Rachel, Kurt, Santana) and gave them just enough screentime to remind the audience of when the show as so much better (and the characters and actors more engaging). But the NY storyline, where they had the chance to do something fresh, ended up being starved for screen time to the point where the only character that got anything close to a full storyline was Rachel. And it all went downhill from there.

 

So there is plenty of blame to spread as to why Glee took a total nosedive starting in season four. I don't blame the noobs totally, but they certainly weren't able to overcome all of the other problems that just handicapped them every step of the way.

[jaytee1812]

Then you had the crap writing. Most of the noobs felt pretty recycled from earlier characters. Marley was Rachel's talent and ambition, but stripped of her drive and spunk. Ryder was Finn 3.0. Jake was Puck without his charisma or vulnerability. I liked Unique (primarily because I liked the actor) but she ended being a cross between Mercedes and Kurt much of the time. The one noob that managed to grow outside of her original template (bitchy cheerleader in the Quinn/Santana mold) was Kitty (which is why she survived for season six).

Marley was nothing like Rachel except for being brunette. Jake was a better character than Puck, Jacob is a much better singer and actor than Mark. Ryder was a likeable version of Finn/Sam. And Kitty was brought back in season 6 because they felt sorry for Becca, and maybe because they wanted another season to destroy the character completely.

I really wish Jenna, Harry, and Becca had turned down the opportunity to appear in season 6. They completely ruined the characters way more than they already had.

[dizzyizzy01]

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.

I actually have a really good idea of their schedule, and the newbies had it a LOT easier.  The hours one that set S2 were so ridiculous.

 

I don't think you can logically support an argument regarding the extremely low level of the current season ratings when the show had already clearly sunk beyond any level of recovery by early S5 when the newbies were still a pretty large focus.  I mean by the time the narrative switched back to the originals, I think the ratings were beyond anything that could be deemed salvageable.  The audience had clearly already left.  A turnaround in ratings would have been an unprecedented TV miracle.

 

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 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. 

I can state there is no way I would have continued to watch Glee without Lea, Chris, to a lesser extent Amber and Matt were not on the show.  I mean I can barely watch it as it is, but the new cast held absolutely no interest for me. 

 

LOL, Shonda can do no wrong right now. 

 

The original cast does deserve a lot of credit for making the show so successful because the frankly did have a large part of it.  It was certainly a perfect storm of events:  a new and very different show and a fantastic and very talented cast that had great chemistry,  But that original cast did a lot.  There was a ton of work and promo before the show even started.  The mall tour before the official first season, the media tour in Australia, the concert tours the subsequent summers, etc.  All of that was really critical to building that that audience and build that fanbase.

Edited March 11, 2015 by dizzyizzy01

[camussie]

I fail to see how Mike was ruined in season 6.  He was completely reasonable in his conversation with Tina. I would say Mike came out of this mess better than anyone.  Tina was ruined in S5.  Season 6 she has been a bit more tolerable.  Kitty is just there to me much like she was just there before.  At least this year she isn't trying to trigger eating disorders.  

 

As far as the rest - while I agree Marley wasn't that similar to Rachel I can't deny the show tried to say over and over she was.  Same with Puck/Jake, Ryder/Finn, Unique/Mercedes, and Kitty/Quinn.

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[spiritof76]

 

The newbies don't get any credit for any decent performances on this show

See that's where the rub is for me. I can't give them credit for decent performances because I don't really think many of their performances were that decent. That is my completely subjective personal opinion. I didn't think they were bad necessarily, but they just didn't interest me. That doesn't mean I don't think they worked very hard on them. I'm sure they did. I just didn't enjoy them. I cared more about the original characters and that is who I wanted to see. Now, I will concede that if RIB had done a better job introducing the new characters, given them better writing/stories, etc. I might have felt differently. For example, I looooved Friday Night Lights and when they had Coach Taylor change schools at the start of Season 4, I was prepared to hate it. But the writing and acting and stories were so good that I was in by the end of the first episode.  So people liking or not liking the new characters is purely subjective. What one person thinks is a great performance someone else thinks is just ok. 

 

Now what can be measured though is the success of a show. And the fact is Glee was hit ratings wise with the original cast of actors. They were nominated and won awards. They broke itunes and billboard charts and record sales with the same group of actors. All of that happened with that original cast. So of course they get the praise for that. They were the ones that were there. The newbies, whether people liked them or not do not have any of those tangible markers of success. They didn't break any itune or Billboard records that i am aware of. They didn't get nominated or win any industry awards. They didn't sell out any world tours. As for the ratings, admittedly the ratings were already starting to slide during Season 3. But they just got worse in Season 4. So maybe the newbies weren't responsible for the rating slide but they certainly didn't help it. The ratings didn't rebound with them there. 

 

So I'm just not sure what people are supposed to give them credit for? They showed up and did their jobs. They seemed like very nice, hard working people.

Edited March 11, 2015 by spiritof76

[Ceeg]

Jake was a better character than Puck, 

 

No.

 

 

Ryder was a likeable version of Finn/Sam. 

 

Also, no. Ryder might have been likable in the beginning, but so were Finn and Sam. I loved Sam in season 2 and 3, and I loved Finn until his line about Kurt's faggy lamp. But then after enough time, the writers managed to ruin Ryder too. And no doubt, had he stayed on any longer, they would have kept ruining him. Also as an aside, Blake's acting was fine, but I still never saw any sort of spark or charisma in anything he did. He's equal to Chord/Sam, for me.

 

 

And Kitty was brought back in season 6 because they felt sorry for Becca, and maybe because they wanted another season to destroy the character completely.

 

Do you have a source for this?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ceeg

[jaytee1812]

I fail to see how Mike was ruined in season 6.  He was completely reasonable in his conversation with Tina.  Tina was ruined in S5.  Season 6 she has been a bit more tolerable.  Kitty is just there to me much like she was just there before.  At least this year she isn't trying to trigger eating disorders.  

 

As far as the rest of what you posted while I agree Marley wasn't that similar to Rachel I can't deny the show tried to say over and over she was.  Same with Puck/Jake and Ryder/Finn.

While I liked it at the time Mike's conversation with Tina leaves him giving up his love so a white guy can have her.

Tina was ruined in S3 when she became a Rachel Berry fangirl.

Kitty is awful from what I've seen this year. She's spent the whole season with her head up Rachel's arse. They've completely removed her spine. And her romantic spoilers almost made me lose my breakfast yesterday.

Ryder kind of was a sweeter Finn/Sam. Obviously Jake and Puck had similarities, they're brothers.

[ancslove]

I don't think Kitty and Mike have been ruined, and Tina's character had improved a bit this season. She's doing well at Brown, and proposing to Mike was played more sympathetically than anything she had to do in S4&5. Kitty has become a leader in the Cheerios and, to a lesser extent, in ND.

I do think the newbies were ill-served by being written as lampshaded Version 2 of the originals. The writing tried to move away from that at the end, but their introduction was too memorably bad.

[jaytee1812]

Do you have a source for this?

The first part I saw it on another thread that Lea was behind Becca coming back.

The second part was obvious from storylines.

[camussie]

I loved Finn until his line about Kurt's faggy lamp.

 

 

And I had the opposite reaction.  I liked Kurt well enough until that episode, where I felt like the writing was so heavy handed towards victimizing Kurt/demonizing Finn all to anvil home PSA, that I have never liked Kurt near as much since.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[jaytee1812]

I don't think Kitty and Mike have been ruined, and Tina's character had improved a bit this season. She's doing well at Brown, and proposing to Mike was played more sympathetically than anything she had to do in S4&5. Kitty has become a leader in the Cheerios and, to a lesser extent, in ND.

Kitty's gone from someone who knew what she wanted and went for it to a pathetic she'll of that bowing at the feet of Rachel Berry.

Mike's also become pathetic. Tina gives Artie and Blaine the time of day. Pathetic.

The spoilers confirm these three characters end up ruined.

[Ceeg]

And i had the opposite reaction.  I liked Kurt well enough until that episode, where I felt like the writing was so heavy handed towards victimizing Kurt/demonizing Finn all to tell a have handed PSA, that I have never liked him near as much.  

 

Oh, I didn't like Kurt during it either. I didn't like either of them. But, things kept adding up with Finn, he kept doing more and more things that bothered me, so I liked him less and less as time went on.

 

Also, from my own-POV, I just have no sympathy or empathy for any straight dude who uses the f-word. Ever. It's kind of a deal breaker for me. And yeah, I know he was playing a high school kid, but I don't care. It'd be the same if someone white called Mercedes the n-word for me, even if they were ~redeemed later on. No matter the motivation, that's borderline unforgivable. Just for me, personally.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Ceeg

[camussie]

Mike's also become pathetic.

 

 

How is Mike pathetic?  Because he doesn't want to marry Tina and because of that she may end up with Artie?  I get you don't like Artie but it is not Mike's job to marry Tina so she won't end up with someone else.  Mike's job is to live his life to his fullest and in his estimation that didn't include marrying Tina.  From all we know about Mike he is doing well in school and keeping his romantic options open.  Hardly pathetic. 

 

As far as Kitty I don't see any evidence, in the little focus she has gotten, that she isn't going after what she wants in life.  After all she happily accepted Myron's money while telling him he didn't have a chance in hell with her.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie

[jaytee1812]

How is Mike pathetic?  Because he doesn't want to marry Tina and because of that she may end up with Artie?  I get you don't like Artie but it is not Mike's job to marry Tina so she won't end up with someone else.  Mike's job is to live his life to his fullest and in his estimation that didn't include marrying Tina.  From all we know about Mike he is doing well in school and keeping his romantic options open.  Hardly pathetic.

We know where Tina ends up.

What was the point of the proposal to show he didn't want her any more? Because that's not how it came across. It been written that Mike doesn't get his happy ending so someone else can.

[camussie]

Mike never made any promises in the wedding episode nor did he come across like he was hoping he and Tina would reunite one day.  He came across like a well adjusted college student who knew high school wasn't the end all and be all but also who wasn't going to say never.  Given that I have every reason to believe his future (which we won't see like we won't see most of the character's future) will be bright.  There is no reason to assume he will be a broken man who never found love because he didn't reunite with Tina several years down the line

 

As for Tina being pathetic for giving Artie & Blaine the time of day, frankly given the way she was written in season 4 and 5, I am surprised she didn't drive off all of her friends.  That said she seems to have gotten it together in college so good for her.  

Edited March 11, 2015 by camussie