Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[supposebly]

On 6/25/2016 at 9:56 PM, ganesh said:

And since this is fiction we're talking about, actions should have consequences. If they don't, then the writers are sort of implying that they do condone what the bad character is doing. 

I would disagree on this one. Why should bad actions have consequences? Just because a character is doing bad things and is getting away with it doesn't really mean the writers condone their actions personally. A lot of characters do bad things and nothing bad happens to them unless that's the story that the writer wants to write. If someone wants to write a story where that doesn't happen doesn't mean they agree with it. I remember that Boyd Crowder on Justified wasn't supposed to live past season1 but he was such a compelling character that he survived throughout the show. He was a  terrible person but then, most characters on Justified were and not all died, including Raylan Givens, the main character.

So, I guess that's my unpopular opinion? Writers can write characters in a way they don't necessarily agree with.

[Neurochick]

4 hours ago, izabella said:

To me, Gabby is awful because they've turned her into a Mary Sue.  She didn't start out that way, but she is now.

I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be a male equivalent of "Mary Sue."

Edited July 20, 2016 by Neurochick

[TattleTeeny]

47 minutes ago, supposebly said:

I would disagree on this one. Why should bad actions have consequences? Just because a character is doing bad things and is getting away with it doesn't really mean the writers condone their actions personally. A lot of characters do bad things and nothing bad happens to them unless that's the story that the writer wants to write. If someone wants to write a story where that doesn't happen doesn't mean they agree with it. I remember that Boyd Crowder on Justified wasn't supposed to live past season1 but he was such a compelling character that he survived throughout the show. He was a  terrible person but then, most characters on Justified were and not all died, including Raylan Givens, the main character.

So, I guess that's my unpopular opinion? Writers can write characters in a way they don't necessarily agree with.

Yeah, and we need bad people--in shows and books and movies, I mean, not real life. Though I'd have a lot less to read if there were not real-life bad people about, so...

 

[Rick Kitchen]

4 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be a male equivalent of "Mary Sue."

Larry Stu, Gary Stu, Marty Stu.

[Minneapple]

Quote

Why should bad actions have consequences? Just because a character is doing bad things and is getting away with it doesn't really mean the writers condone their actions personally. 

 All actions in fiction should have some kind of consequence, otherwise what's the point? Just let anyone do anything. Even Ramsey Bolton finally got his comeuppance on Game of Thrones. And Cersei Lannister will, I have no doubt. But Dick Casablancas never did on Veronica Mars and that's something that bothers me to this day. It doesn't mean that the writers condone rape personally, but it does demonstrate a kind of blindness concerning the character. He roofied a drink and encouraged his brother to rape a girl and he's...a funny, witty hot but kind of dim guy? Who gets a pass from that girl raped by his brother? It makes no sense. It's bad writing.

[supposebly]

16 minutes ago, Minneapple said:

But Dick Casablancas never did on Veronica Mars and that's something that bothers me to this day. It doesn't mean that the writers condone rape personally, but it does demonstrate a kind of blindness concerning the character. He roofied a drink and encouraged his brother to rape a girl and he's...a funny, witty hot but kind of dim guy? Who gets a pass from that girl raped by his brother? It makes no sense. It's bad writing.

Agreed, that one was terribly bad. I'm sure there are a lot of examples to be found, I think Vampire Diaries might be one example where the popularity of a character/actor let his/her actions slide as well. I tend to think that this kind of blindness happens with male characters more often than female ones (although that discussion would be better for another thread).

What I disagree on is that the whole point of a story is for the bad guys to get their comeuppance. While most TV shows tend to end that way in one way or another, if that's all there is, then that seems rather stagnant and predictable storytelling. It's satisfying, but not automatically good story telling.

I never watched Breaking Bad, Sopranos, or Dexter, but did their "bad" guys get theirs? Did it make it a better story because of it? Would a story about redemption of a bad guy not be equally compelling? I'm thinking of Boyd Crowder, who was a murderer and all around bad guy but while he ended up in prison and eventually became a born again Christian (although it's never quite clear if he's serious about it, he'd done that before), he certainly would have deserved much more.

[ganesh]

You knew how Breaking Bad was kind of going to end, but I'd say Walter got away with it. I wouldn't say Tony Soprano got any comeuppance either. Going back further, I'd also say Vic Mackey on The Shield didn't really get comeuppance. Then there's GOT where everyone is bad.

[atomationage]

The thing about Dexter was that he was always going after bad guys, so that made him a good bad guy.   For me though, he broke that rule in episode 1 of season 6.   I watched each episode of the series many times, and have no recollection, right now, of how it ended. 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

But Dick Casablancas never did on Veronica Mars and that's something that bothers me to this day. It doesn't mean that the writers condone rape personally, but it does demonstrate a kind of blindness concerning the character. He roofied a drink and encouraged his brother to rape a girl and he's...a funny, witty hot but kind of dim guy? Who gets a pass from that girl raped by his brother? It makes no sense. It's bad writing.

I don't agree that it's bad writing, per se, but do agree that it was pretty annoying because, yeah, someone should have really let him have it, even in the unlikely scenario that the people involved decided to just move on about it regardless (because TV). But the fact that you say that it doesn't mean that writers condone it is what separates you from the people that inspired my original post on this topic; those people truly seem to believe that the writers are saying, "hey, we think it's cool and so should you!" or that portraying = glorifying.

Haha, random thought: what if people thought of authors the same way--like condoning something just because they wrote about it? Stephen King would be on some kind of terror watch list, true-crime writers would be locked up, and romance authors, who even knows!

Edited July 20, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Chaos Theory]

When it comes Dick Casablancas I think it came down to people "liking" him   I have my own little saying when it comes to tv "There are no prisons in tv land." Its kind of true unless you are on a cop/prisonshow.  You can't send a "villain" to prison without writing them off the show so you either have to "redeem" the character or kill the character or send them "Out of town" for awhile.   I don't remember the entire storyline because it has been awhile but somewhere along the line Dick became a better man and that was in large part because he screwed up so badly when it came to his brother.   Then again some characters get little acts of redemption and not big ones.  Plus the show did go downhill in the third season so whatever the iniatial intention for the character we will never know.  

[atomationage]

I couldn't believe they tried to give Casablancas that Play It Again, Dick series.    I looked at it to see if anybody good was in it, but I couldn't stand the sight of that character again. 

[allyw]

I don't mind bad people doing bad things in my tv shows but I do have a problem when the "good" characters call them out for their action(s) they're the ones who are made out to be judgmental and somehow in the wrong especially if the "bad" character is a "hot" male. I also have a problem when the "moral center" usually a female forgives the "bad" character for his shitty actions because you know he's had such a "tragic childhood" and really deep down he's a "good person" and of course more than likely her belief in him will bring out his *vomit* good side.

[ParadoxLost]

5 hours ago, supposebly said:

I would disagree on this one. Why should bad actions have consequences? Just because a character is doing bad things and is getting away with it doesn't really mean the writers condone their actions personally.

I would say that bad actions always have to have consequences.  What they don't have to have is a comeuppance.  And by consequences, its as simple as supporting characters reacting to the protagonist in ways that make sense in relation to their own characterization.  

That is usually where some of these types of shows fail.  They box the protagonist into a corner, where it makes no sense that he's not in jail or murdered or completely isolated, and then try to walk the bad behavior back by having other characters forget niggling details like rape and murder because its inconvenient to plot.  That is usually when I bail.  And that is what usually seems to get interpreted as the writers condoning the behavior.  The supporting characters don't acknowledge the protagonist is a bad guy so the viewers decide that the writers don't know that the protagonist is doing bad things.

[zxy556575]

Bad TV behavior usually has consequences but I don't mind if it doesn't. I just watched the first season of a U.K. cop show from a few years ago about police corruption and almost everyone went unpunished in the end. That was the point of the show. The journey for viewers was the situational ethics of it all; seeing the line between good and bad blur and then move entirely. It adds layers to the characters and can be compelling.

I tend not to like dreary, depressing shows, where every single person is messed up and dark and gritty, but that's more a boredom issue for me than needing people to get their just desserts.

[kathyk24]

7 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be a male equivalent of "Mary Sue."

I couldn't agree with you more. Ray on Legends of Tomorrow is a superhero who is rich, handsome and brilliant. If Ray were female she would be called a Mary Sue. Ray is allowed to be himself.

[Ambrosefolly]

8 hours ago, Neurochick said:

I find it interesting that there doesn't seem to be a male equivalent of "Mary Sue."

On General Hospital, Gary Sue has been banded around to describe Jason Morgan. Holy Hitman is the one that is used a lot, as well as Jasus. The character is the epitome of a Gary Sue: he rarely, if ever, makes a mistake, women automatically are devoted to him, and in two cases he managed to steal away the husband's wife while everyone chastised the husband being undeserving of the woman and praising Jason even higher, as he was protected by plot armor. His family, who he often insults to their face or behind their backs, are begging for scraps of his attention, despite their being a hurting legitimate male in the family and the fact he stole his son and had him raised by criminals. It might not happen often, but it does happen.

[Raja]

8 hours ago, ganesh said:

You knew how Breaking Bad was kind of going to end, but I'd say Walter got away with it. I wouldn't say Tony Soprano got any comeuppance either. Going back further, I'd also say Vic Mackey on The Shield didn't really get comeuppance. Then there's GOT where everyone is bad.

I remember well Vic being under house arrest and solitary confinement "working" in a Customs Service  basement for three years when Ronnie went upstate for life and the rest of his Strike Team was dead.

[Jack Shaftoe]

7 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I would say that bad actions always have to have consequences.  What they don't have to have is a comeuppance.  And by consequences, its as simple as supporting characters reacting to the protagonist in ways that make sense in relation to their own characterization.  

That is usually where some of these types of shows fail.  They box the protagonist into a corner, where it makes no sense that he's not in jail or murdered or completely isolated, and then try to walk the bad behavior back by having other characters forget niggling details like rape and murder because its inconvenient to plot.  That is usually when I bail.  And that is what usually seems to get interpreted as the writers condoning the behavior.  The supporting characters don't acknowledge the protagonist is a bad guy so the viewers decide that the writers don't know that the protagonist is doing bad things.

Exactly. The bad guy getting off scot-free because he avoids getting caught, bribes the authorities, has a good lawyer, etc.? Perfectly normal because it happens all the time in the real world. The bad guy avoiding punishment because the good guys who have him at their mercy can't be bothered to treat him like they would treat a random minion who has done the same things (or even much less serious crimes)? Breaks my suspension of disbelief into a thousand pieces. I wouldn't say that writers intentionally condone the crimes of such characters, they just want to avoid writing them off the respective show and can't think of a way of achieving them that doesn't involve forcing other characters to behave like morons. And if you happen to dislike the Karma Houdini in the first place, seeing other characters whom you like behaving OOC for the sake of him remaining in the show really adds insult to injury.

[Luckylyn]

16 hours ago, Minneapple said:

 All actions in fiction should have some kind of consequence, otherwise what's the point? Just let anyone do anything. Even Ramsey Bolton finally got his comeuppance on Game of Thrones. And Cersei Lannister will, I have no doubt. But Dick Casablancas never did on Veronica Mars and that's something that bothers me to this day. It doesn't mean that the writers condone rape personally, but it does demonstrate a kind of blindness concerning the character. He roofied a drink and encouraged his brother to rape a girl and he's...a funny, witty hot but kind of dim guy? Who gets a pass from that girl raped by his brother? It makes no sense. It's bad writing.

One thing that particularly disturbed me about Dick getting away with what he did was that Veronica snarked on him but never held a grudge against him like she did the girl Dick had been intending to rape that night.  Yeah, that girl was a terrible person who spit in a drink and gave it to Veronica, but she didn't know there was a date rape drug in it.  Yet Veronica hated that girl way more than she seemed to hate Dick, and I never understood why Veronica never went after Dick beyond insulting him.  She had disdain for him but never seemed to hate him with the intensity his actions deserved.  Maybe it was just rage that that girl was sort of rewarded by fate despite her being a terrible person who spits in drinks to be nasty to people while pretending to be their friend ended up saving her from being raped.  I kind of get that, but Veronica should have hated Dick way more than they showed.  This is a guy who fully intended to rape someone, and when his target didn't ingest the drink he pressured his brother to rape Veronica instead.  He's a monster, and the show never treats him that way.  Logan remaining such close friends with him even knowing Dick's part in Veronica's rape never sat right with me either.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Luckylyn

[Enigma X]

I said this before (and probably to the point where my saying this has become many people's popular opinion that I sound like a broken record and am becoming annoying... oh well!), but just because you wrap a show (reality or scripted) up in a British accent does not make  it better than an American version or show. I say this as a person who is gaga in love with British shows and certain British men merely because of their accents.

[atomationage]

1 hour ago, Luckylyn said:

Yeah, that girl was a terrible person who spit in a drink and gave it to Veronica,

Madison?  She ended up making out with Deputy Dipshit in the elevator in the hotel, and it ended up on campaign posters for Keith when they were running against each other for sheriff.  His response was:  She's eighteen.  It's legal. 

[ribboninthesky1]

7 hours ago, Enigma X said:

I said this before (and probably to the point where my saying this has become many people's popular opinion that I sound like a broken record and am becoming annoying... oh well!), but just because you wrap a show (reality or scripted) up in a British accent does not make  it better than an American version or show. I say this as a person who is gaga in love with British shows and certain British men merely because of their accents.

To add to this...I've watched a few of these "Masterpiece" Theatre PBS shows, and um...they were not masterpieces. Liars! 

16 hours ago, Ambrosefolly said:

On General Hospital, Gary Sue has been banded around to describe Jason Morgan. Holy Hitman is the one that is used a lot, as well as Jasus. 

Bwah! Gotta come up with a way to incorporate the bolded into everyday conversation.  

[Enigma X]

52 minutes ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

To add to this...I've watched a few of these "Masterpiece" Theatre PBS shows, and um...they were not masterpieces. Liars!

Indeed!

[Dee]

Unpopular Opinion: Mandy and Mickey Milkovich are both trash.

[andromeda331]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 10:02 PM, Ambrosefolly said:

On General Hospital, Gary Sue has been banded around to describe Jason Morgan. Holy Hitman is the one that is used a lot, as well as Jasus. The character is the epitome of a Gary Sue: he rarely, if ever, makes a mistake, women automatically are devoted to him, and in two cases he managed to steal away the husband's wife while everyone chastised the husband being undeserving of the woman and praising Jason even higher, as he was protected by plot armor. His family, who he often insults to their face or behind their backs, are begging for scraps of his attention, despite their being a hurting legitimate male in the family and the fact he stole his son and had him raised by criminals. It might not happen often, but it does happen.

That was one of the reasons I finally quit the show. Sonny was the other.  I held on for years hoping it would go back to the show it used to be before but finally had to give up and quit.

[caci]

Sonny and Jason were the reasons I quit watching, too.  My unpopular opinion on General Hospital is that  I always felt more for AJ than Jason and thought hr was the wronged party.

[proserpina65]

23 hours ago, Enigma X said:

I said this before (and probably to the point where my saying this has become many people's popular opinion that I sound like a broken record and am becoming annoying... oh well!), but just because you wrap a show (reality or scripted) up in a British accent does not make  it better than an American version or show. I say this as a person who is gaga in love with British shows and certain British men merely because of their accents.

Very true.  I mean, a lot of British shows are better than the American version, but not all of them.

[UYI]

7 hours ago, caci said:

Sonny and Jason were the reasons I quit watching, too.  My unpopular opinion on General Hospital is that  I always felt more for AJ than Jason and thought hr was the wronged party.

Believe me, if you come on over to the GH forum, you'll find a LOT of us who agree with you.

We have our own UO thread, too. :)

Edited July 22, 2016 by UYI

[UYI]

22 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

To add to this...I've watched a few of these "Masterpiece" Theatre PBS shows, and um...they were not masterpieces. Liars! 

Bwah! Gotta come up with a way to incorporate the bolded into everyday conversation.  

It's true, though. He kills people for a living in the mob, but people STILL hang on to the idea that he's Jason Quartermaine before the car accident that gave him permanent brain damage in 1995, and caused him to turn against his own family and change his last name.

But when Bob Guza was head writer, he was content to lick Steve Burton's ass at all costs, hence how it went on for so long.  

[Chaos Theory]

7 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Very true.  I mean, a lot of British shows are better than the American version, but not all of them.

Two examples of American versions I like better are Shameless and Being Human.   I won't get into House Of Cards because whole other conversation. 

[atomationage]

I agree on Being Human, but not Shameless.   In both series, they were able to continue the show with  a different cast than they started out with.  This was jarring in Shameless, but if you stuck with the series, it worked very well.  I thought the ninth season was some of the best television programming ever.  On Being Human, they only did one season with a different cast, but they were all very good.   I couldn't get past the first episodes of House of Cards. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, atomationage said:

I agree on Being Human, but not Shameless.   In both series, they were able to continue the show with  a different cast than they started out with.  This was jarring in Shameless, but if you stuck with the series, it worked very well.  I thought the ninth season was some of the best television programming ever.  On Being Human, they only did one season with a different cast, but they were all very good.   I couldn't get past the first episodes of House of Cards. 

You know it's funny with Shameless. I actually preferred the British version of the first two series, but am finding I like American version more after the first couple seasons. I kinda thought the British version piddled out, to a certain extent, after the second series and I stopped watching it after the third, but it seems the American one really found itself in the second season.

I cannot say the same for Being Human. Found the tone of the American version to be too soapy for me to continue after the second season.

Edited July 22, 2016 by DittyDotDot

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, caci said:

Sonny and Jason were the reasons I quit watching, too.  My unpopular opinion on General Hospital is that  I always felt more for AJ than Jason and thought hr was the wronged party.

Me too.

[MaryPatShelby]

On 7/20/2016 at 7:45 AM, DangerousMinds said:

Apparently a lot of people out there have LOTS of free time. Time to watch (and it seems in many cases, rewatch) and search out TPTB on social media.

And listen to show-related podcasts, and check the show website every day, and read every article.....I wish I had the time to do this for even two of my favorite shows, but I don't.  That's why I like it when the show tells the story and I don't need to follow companion content.

On 7/20/2016 at 1:24 PM, Minneapple said:

A lot of times what happens is that the bad character does bad things and then...suffers no consequences for their bad actions.

The exact reason I stopped watching House of Cards.  I just couldn't with Frank and Claire about halfway through the second season.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 22/07/2016 at 9:30 AM, proserpina65 said:

Very true.  I mean, a lot of British shows are better than the American version, but not all of them.

Have to figure it gets skewed, since most people in north America only see the really good British shows, the ones that are popular/good enough to be exported. I get a sense that if we saw all of their crappy shows as well people might think different.

[atomationage]

4 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

if we saw all of their crappy shows as well people might think different.

Like BBCA endlessly showing Top Gear episodes, or all the reality shows with competitions between celebrities who are only celebrities because they're on other shows just like it.  They've made plenty of shows that I didn't like, but they don't usually have very many episodes.  There are soap operas and quiz shows, and many more history shows than we ever get here.  So just the differences keep it interesting.  

[ABay]

Looking at the UK TV Guide for any shows that might look interesting, in case they ever turn up here, it was really surprising and kind of appalling how much US TV is shown there. Jeez. Even Canada gets less and they share a border with us.

[Raja]

19 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Have to figure it gets skewed, since most people in north America only see the really good British shows, the ones that are popular/good enough to be exported. I get a sense that if we saw all of their crappy shows as well people might think different.

It may be generational but before we had all these channels British shows were a large part of what the style setters on US Public Broadcasting System choose for us with their marketing that this is quality compared to the waste of US network shows. Even with PBS starting to go to non English sources that prejudice remains when a British show may not be much different from a Canadian or Australian show., just the local accents of the actors Only a Canadian show might hide distinguishing Canadian characteristics so that their location might be seen as a US location.. 

[Minneapple]

21 hours ago, ABay said:

Looking at the UK TV Guide for any shows that might look interesting, in case they ever turn up here, it was really surprising and kind of appalling how much US TV is shown there. Jeez. Even Canada gets less and they share a border with us.

There simply is more money in US television, and so studios are able to produce much more content. It's easier and cheaper for UK networks just to show American shows.

[atomationage]

I wish we had better access to Australian and Canadian shows.  Some Australian accents are quite harsh, but many shows don't feature those.  Then they did that "Camp" show with all those Australian actors from Dance Academy and Rachel Griffiths all playing Americans.  I thought it was just to prove that they could do what the Canadians do.   I'm following a Canadian cop show named 19-2.  Apparently this is a remake of a previous French Canadian show of the same name.  Now, I'd like to see that one.  Basically, I want everything. 

[ganesh]

One of the Australian networks did a spate of true crime movies/series called Underbelly. It was really interesting. They had their own Donny Brasco, and some woman invented the fake panel in the suitcase trick. I don't think need to see a workplace comedy set in a vegamite plant, but getting access to content like that would be cool. It's too bad netflix or hulu couldn't get the rights to stuff. 

[atomationage]

Hulu has Wonderland, Please Like Me, Packed to the Rafters, the original Wilfred,  the original The Slap, the original Secrets And Lies,  and Sea Patrol, so there are some Australian programs available there. 

[slf]

On 7/21/2016 at 8:19 AM, Luckylyn said:

One thing that particularly disturbed me about Dick getting away with what he did was that Veronica snarked on him but never held a grudge against him like she did the girl Dick had been intending to rape that night.  Yeah, that girl was a terrible person who spit in a drink and gave it to Veronica, but she didn't know there was a date rape drug in it.  Yet Veronica hated that girl way more than she seemed to hate Dick, and I never understood why Veronica never went after Dick beyond insulting him.  She had disdain for him but never seemed to hate him with the intensity his actions deserved.  Maybe it was just rage that that girl was sort of rewarded by fate despite her being a terrible person who spits in drinks to be nasty to people while pretending to be their friend ended up saving her from being raped.  I kind of get that, but Veronica should have hated Dick way more than they showed.  This is a guy who fully intended to rape someone, and when his target didn't ingest the drink he pressured his brother to rape Veronica instead.  He's a monster, and the show never treats him that way.  Logan remaining such close friends with him even knowing Dick's part in Veronica's rape never sat right with me either.

The answer is simply the writers/showrunner liked the character and actor more than they felt compelled to actually address the fact that he assisted in Veronica's rape and had intended to rape a girl himself. The character was for all intents and purposes a rapist but, gosh, the writers just thought he was so funny they had to keep him. And the showrunner no doubt prides himself on being a feminist and for crafting a show with a female protagonist but at the end of the day chose to have a rape victim angrier at another girl (who was almost raped) than angry at a man who was directly involved in her assault and attempted another.

And this is why people like me don't like shows were 'bad' guys are the leads or popular. Because it isn't edgy or progressive. Watch this man butcher people, especially women, and get away with it! Watch this guy rape girls and get away with it! Watch the writers and even a decent chunk of the fandom talk about how they are totally not making excuses for him and then turn around and talk about his sad childhood, all the potential he has, and how he's such a funny guy! Which totally isn't a reflection of real life! You know? There's nothing original about Damon Salvatore or Dick Casablancas; these douchebags are a dime a dozen. And it's not curious to me why showrunners think a rapist is interesting and often also a viable romantic option. That is the world we live in and I don't think tv writers spend a whole lot of time reflecting on the prejudices they were raised with, no matter how liberal and progressive they think they are.

What's interesting about watching a murderer 'gain' redemption (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Redemption has its limits. You can't be a rapist and a good guy, you can't be a serial killer and a good guy; it doesn't matter how many good deeds you commit or how many people fall in love with you. And I'm sorry but take a look at who it is, always: white men. "Yes, this white man makes racist 'jokes' and kills people, and rapes women, but he can be redeemed! You should be mad at him but not hate him! It would be really subversive if you rooted for him and tried to understand how he sees himself!" Why? Why three new shows a year about some boring white dude slaughtering people because his daddy was an asshole? Know what's actually subversive? A tv show that actually casts, say, a black man as the lead and portrays him as intelligent, charming, sexually appealing, competent. Or imagine this: a tv show where the women are bigger than a size 2, where most or all of them don't wear makeup or blow out and then curl their hair, where they dress for comfort and not to be stylish.

Let's look at it this way, what are you more likely to see in an episode of Game of Thrones: a scene where a woman is raped or a scene where a woman quite understandably has armpit hair? The answer is why popular bad guys aren't edgy or subversive, and that answer is: a scene where a woman is raped because armpit hair on a woman is 'grosser'. 

[ribboninthesky1]

1 hour ago, slf said:

The answer is simply the writers/showrunner liked the character and actor more than they felt compelled to actually address the fact that he assisted in Veronica's rape and had intended to rape a girl himself.

Another person addressed this already (redemption vs consequences?), but yeah, TPTB lose me on a character (or a show) fairly quickly when it becomes obvious that they like a character/actor like this, so they'll twist themselves into pretzels to justify the writing.  Reason #47 that I don't give much of a damn what the creative team thinks - I care about what is played out on screen. 

In truth? Though I avoid much of it, I do believe that this sub-culture of "behind-the-scenes" media (that I suppose is mainstream now) hurts the industry more than help it. 

[LeeLeePanda]

On July 22, 2016 at 1:59 PM, UYI said:

Believe me, if you come on over to the GH forum, you'll find a LOT of us who agree with you.

We have our own UO thread, too. :)

 

On July 22, 2016 at 6:36 AM, caci said:

Sonny and Jason were the reasons I quit watching, too.  My unpopular opinion on General Hospital is that  I always felt more for AJ than Jason and thought hr was the wronged party.

I think I've found my people. I hated Sonny and Jason with the passion of a thousand suns. I stopped watching because of those two also. 

[Jack Shaftoe]

Quote

What's interesting about watching a murderer 'gain' redemption (whatever that's supposed to mean)? Redemption has its limits. You can't be a rapist and a good guy, you can't be a serial killer and a good guy; it doesn't matter how many good deeds you commit or how many people fall in love with you. And I'm sorry but take a look at who it is, always: white men.

Predominantly, yes, but not always. Helena of Orphan Black is a serial killer and a Karma Houdini. Ditto for Anya from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Quote

That is the world we live in and I don't think tv writers spend a whole lot of time reflecting on the prejudices they were raised with, no matter how liberal and progressive they think they are.

Honestly, I am more inclined to blame the viewers who vocally demand redemption for the (sexy) villains than the showrunners themselves. Most showrunners are in the entertainment industry for the money. If the majority of their audience detested the Spikes and Damons there would not be such redemption stories or at least they would be far rarer. Of course, there are showrunners who apparently think that making war criminals/serial murderers/rapists seem sympathetic is the pinnacle of art and edginess (cough, Jason Rothenberg, cough) but I suspect that most are merely doing what they think will sell better. Game of Thrones is all the rage now, so darker and edgier is the current fad.

[atomationage]

9 hours ago, LeeLeePanda said:

I hated Sonny and Jason with the passion of a thousand suns. I stopped watching because of those two also. 

Just Sonny for me, but it was such a shame that they were featured so much, when they had such a good cast left waiting in the wings. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎07‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 1:37 PM, atomationage said:

Like BBCA endlessly showing Top Gear episodes, or all the reality shows with competitions between celebrities who are only celebrities because they're on other shows just like it.  They've made plenty of shows that I didn't like, but they don't usually have very many episodes.  There are soap operas and quiz shows, and many more history shows than we ever get here.  So just the differences keep it interesting.  

Top Gear is a terrific show, and the original is vastly superior to the American version, but BBC America runs it too ... damned ... much.  And I refer to the classic Jezza/Hamster/Captain Slow lineup, not the new abomination.

[joelene]

17 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

Top Gear is a terrific show, and the original is vastly superior to the American version, but BBC America runs it too ... damned ... much.

It's the same (or worse) on BBC Sweden (or whatever the channel is called). Top Gear, Top Gear, Top Gear, QI, Pointless, Top Gear, Top Gear, Graham Norton Show, Top Gear, Rude-ish Tube, QI, Top Gear, Pointless, Top Gear, Top Gear.

That's it for about 90% of the time 365 days of the year. Another 5% is Top Gear 24/7 marathons, and then sometimes you get a treat with something like Fawlty Towers an hour a day for a week. I am totally indifferent to Top Gear and while I love QI and Graham Norton I just don't understand why these are the only shows that are on? Is it THAT difficult to add new shows? Are they too lazy to do it? WHY

[ganesh]

I just don't get the need or reasoning to post to say you won't be watching the show anymore. No one is obligated to watch anything.