Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Wiendish Fitch]

I think this might also be a case of the actual type of prison OINTB is set in.  It is a minimum security federal prison.  So it isn't like, say, Oz or something with hardcore career criminals.  So it makes sense that some of what they did to land them there are lapses of judgement or just plain old dumb decisions.  And the truth is poor, minority women with a lack of education and resources like Taystee are more likely to be incarcerated than someone like Piper.  That said I do like it when we see a backstory where at least you don't feel quite so bad they are in there like with Morello and her stalking or Black CIndy and her outright thievery or even Gloria and her fraud.

 

 

You forgot to mention Morello's

attempted murder of her "rival".

One of the most annoying things about OITNB's second season (and one of the reasons I haven't bothered with the third) was the woobie-fication of Morello.

 

Don't misunderstand me: I loved the complexity of the characters, the backstories that reveal what drove them to commit their crimes, and the show wisely neither condoned or vilified their actions, instead letting us draw our own conclusions. However, I was annoyed that Morello's episode seemed to imply that poor Morello just needs a little love, that she's really a wonderful person deep down, and Christopher was just a big ol' meanie for not giving her a chance.

 

Fuck that noise. Morello didn't just stalk some guy who didn't propose to her after their only date, 

she tried to murder his fiancee.

Again, the show's strength was its refreshingly mature and objective approach to complicated characters, but it felt like Morello was given an inch that few other character get to have. 

[Chaos Theory]

You forgot to mention Morello's

attempted murder of her "rival".

One of the most annoying things about OITNB's second season (and one of the reasons I haven't bothered with the third) was the woobie-fication of Morello.

Don't misunderstand me: I loved the complexity of the characters, the backstories that reveal what drove them to commit their crimes, and the show wisely neither condoned or vilified their actions, instead letting us draw our own conclusions. However, I was annoyed that Morello's episode seemed to imply that poor Morello just needs a little love, that she's really a wonderful person deep down, and Christopher was just a big ol' meanie for not giving her a chance.

Fuck that noise. Morello didn't just stalk some guy who didn't propose to her after their only date,

she tried to murder his fiancee.

Again, the show's strength was its refreshingly mature and objective approach to complicated characters, but it felt like Morello was given an inch that few other character get to have.

My interpretation is Morello is one of the few people who should be in prison. I thought her backstory was one of the better ones because it made sense in retrospect. I don't see a bit of (And I HAtE HATE HATE HATE one more time HATE the term) wobbying of Morello at all. All I see is someone loving her for who she is warts and all. That isn't a bad thing.

And just because I hate it so much.. I think the term woobie is the worst most condescending term used to describe a character. I would almost prefer any term other then that. I hate it so much.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Cobalt Stargazer]

And just because I hate it so much..  I thing the term woobie is the worst most condescending term used to describe a character.  I would almost prefer and term other then that.  I hate it so much.  

 

Eh. Woobie is fairly mild, IMO, because woobie at least means the writers (if no one else) probably think the character is deserving of affection and love, no matter what kind of asshole they've been. I don't watch Orange Is The New Black so I can't speak about this Morello person, but since I've watched way too much TV in my life I am all too well-acquainted with the concept of the (Bad Boy) Woobie.

[Julia]

I tend to stop watching when they w**bify awful, unredeemed characters. It's one of the things about Root - the rare woman who got a woman fridged on her show to make her sympathetic - that chased me away from POI. Assholes, fine. People with hard lives aren't necessarily exposed to gracious good manners. As soon as they make the choice to pass the evil on, though, not so much.

[Chaos Theory]

Can someone explain the difference between redemption and woobying a character? Or are we saying they are the same thing? Are we saying redeeming a bad character is awful because that happens to be one of my favorite story arcs. When done well a redemption arc is incredible drama. Giving bad characters a frame of reference for their bad behavior is also good drama when done well. I don't see either as a bad thing.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[ganesh]

Behold the mulleted show: procedural in the front, serial in the back!

 

That's actually a salient model for a modern 20+ episode USA tv show. 

[DearEvette]

Can someone explain the difference between redemption and woobying a character? Or are we saying they are the same thing? Are we saying redeeming a bad character is awful because that happens to be one of my favorite story arcs. When done well a redemption arc is incredible drama. Giving bad characters a frame of reference for their bad behavior is also good drama when done well. I don't see either as a bad thing.

 

Hmmm..   To me a 'woobification' is an intentional, often transparent attempt to make you feel sorry for an unsympathetic character.  It can be (but is not always) the precursor to trying to redeem the character for viewers in order to make them more sympathetic or move them into a more heroic role.  Often the 'woobying' involves a really tragic or horrible something from the character's past or a glimpse into them feeling terrible about something.  I don't know about other people. but I often use the term scornfully because to me it feels like clear writer manipulation.  A short-cut to trying to make me like someone through pity that you spent an awful lot of time honestly making me dislike.  So for instance, I felt that making Mellie a rape victim on Scandal fell into the woobie-sphere.   She had been a hard core person who wanted to be First lady and didn't care that her husband was sleeping around. But wait... she's not just this cold hearted ambitious woman who just wants power!  She is a victim who was keeping this super terrible secret and deep down loves her husband.

 

A redemption arc can include a 'woobie' but doesn't need to. A redemption can just be a anti-hero who realizes he's been lied to or is contrasted with an even worse villain  or s/he falls in love with a good person and thus he becomes more sympathetic through positive action rather than through a pitiable story.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Can someone explain the difference between redemption and woobying a character? Or are we saying they are the same thing? Are we saying redeeming a bad character is awful because that happens to be one of my favorite story arcs. When done well a redemption arc is incredible drama. Giving bad characters a frame of reference for their bad behavior is also good drama when done well. I don't see either as a bad thing.

 

DearEvette went into some detail already, so I'll give the thumbnail version because its three a.m.

 

For me, the difference is that redemption takes work, while 'woobifying' usually happens overnight due to writers' fiat. "Poof, everything is explained by this one incident, because it isn't as if most people don't have something awful that happened to them and yet they don't behave like utter jackholes every waking second."

 

Let's consider Once Upon A Time's Regina. At the start of the series, she was holding everyone suspended in time because, basically, she was an evil bitch who enjoyed making people suffer, even when they weren't really aware that they were suffering due to the mind-fuck she was perpetrating. She enjoyed keeping the heroic characters apart romantically because she hated them for no other reason that they existed, and even her foster son was little more than a chess piece, something she used to make herself feel good by more or less forcing him to love her.

 

Fast forward a bit, and it turned out that Regina wasn't so much evil as she was "misunderstood", that it was really her mother Cora who was responsible for her daughter being so hateful. And then Cora was killed by the good guys through trickery, either because they were really trying to kill Regina or because Cora was going to kill everybody for her own purposes. Regardless, it gave Regina a "reason" to hate the good guys even more than usual, and it dirtied up the formerly heroic characters so that she'd look better because of their underhandedness. It's called blackwashing, which also took place during the sixth season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, when the writers got the "brilliant" idea of trying to make fetch happen with Buffy and Spike. But in order to do so, they basically had to strip the other characters of every good quality they possessed so that it would "make sense" for her to allow the unrepentant murderer to get within ten feet of her. It's laziness, really, not just bad writing, and it happens with sci fi shows more often than more "realistic" programs.

[Danny Franks]

I usually simplify woobification down to whether I feel like the writers are trying to engender my sympathy for a character who I don't feel has earned or deserves it. Yeah, usually it's through some contrived 'tragic' event that is supposed to make me feel sad for them, and it usually involves quietly downplaying or outright ignoring the unsympathetic aspects of the character that were evident before this. Like, as mentioned already, the tiresome Spike from Buffy.

 

But sometimes woobification is driven by fans (this is becoming more and more common, thanks to tumblr and fanfic communities) who ascribe nobler motives to a character than are evident in the text, or just trivialise motives to childish levels. Loki is one of the main examples here, with fans trying to make his malevolence about his sad childhood and secret crush on Thor or some similar bullshit, rather than just accepting that he's a callow, malignant, selfish, power-hungry asshole.

[Chaos Theory]

See Regina is a character I would use as a series long story redemption arc. Season one she is evil and since then she is trying with varying degrees of success to be less evil. Her back stories are giving frames of reference for her decions while never excusing them.

Using Regina has an example of a wobbie is the exact reason I hate and don't understand the term because her entire story arc is her attempt to change. Now using Rumple as a woobie makes more sense because the show wants you to feel sorry for him without any real attempt to change his actions.

As for Spike I can go either way on that. The show did suddenly and for murky reason make him incredibly emo but then he had always kinda been that. I didnt particularly like his realatiobship with Buffy but I didn't completely see a personality shift in him either.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[DittyDotDot]

For me a "woobie" is any type of character who makes you feel sorry for them--but it's generally a character I find compelling rather than pathetic--if all you can think to utter about a character is: "Aw, poor baby!", that's a woobie, to me. Wobifying and redeeming a character are not exclusive, IMO.

 

Although, much like the use of the terms "Mary Sue" or "Jumping the Shark", the definition of "woobie" is probably more a matter of opinion than fact.

 

ETA: I only watched the first season of Once Upon A Time, but I can't say I ever uttered "Aw, poor baby!" with regards to Regina.

Edited November 29, 2015 by DittyDotDot

[DeLurker]

nevermind

Edited November 29, 2015 by DeLurker

[Cobalt Stargazer]

But sometimes woobification is driven by fans (this is becoming more and more common, thanks to tumblr and fanfic communities) who ascribe nobler motives to a character than are evident in the text, or just trivialise motives to childish levels. Loki is one of the main examples here, with fans trying to make his malevolence about his sad childhood and secret crush on Thor or some similar bullshit, rather than just accepting that he's a callow, malignant, selfish, power-hungry asshole.

 

And to be a little fair, that's mostly due to Hiddleston, who makes Loki's whining and petulance a fraction less obnoxious than it should be. The fact that Movie!Thor sometimes comes off as dumb as a bag of hair - Matrimony - only makes Loki's jealousy of him even worse, because in the myths (or the source material, if you prefer) Thor was capable of outwitting Loki eight out of ten times.

[Jack Shaftoe]

Let's face, in TV lingo, "redemption arc" usually means "we will have the protagonists ignore the bad deeds of the character in question because the writers and/or a vocal portion of the fandom likes said character". And of course, as mentioned, blatant manipulation, often involving transparent tactics like characters blaming the woobie for some things they didn't really do instead of the many worse things they did do.

 

 

Are we saying redeeming a bad character is awful because that happens to be one of my favorite story arcs.

 

Redeeming a character isn't bad per se, the problem is on television usually the process is supposed to be redeeming but it's actually whitewashing. Believable redemption story require time. Few shows can afford to plan a character journey lasting a few years or have writers that can pull it off convincingly, so they take shortcuts. Not to mention that I am convinced that half the time the writers themselves do not want to write this kind of story for that particular character but succumb to fan pressure. I know people have already mentioned Spike but I can't help but take a shot at him too - there is a Buffy episode when it's revealed, I am sorry, I meant to say retconned that he went after Slayers not because he enjoyed killing but because was looking for a fair fight against a worthy opponent. Never mind that back in season 2 he was gleeful at the idea of attacking Buffy when a magical accident had stripped her of her powers.

[Julia]

Let's face, in TV lingo, "redemption arc" usually means "we will have the protagonists ignore the bad deeds of the character in question because the writers and/or a vocal portion of the fandom likes said character". And of course, as mentioned, blatant manipulation, often involving transparent tactics like characters blaming the woobie for some things they didn't really do instead of the many worse things they did do.

 

This. I finally quit even periodically checking in on Agents of SHIELD when they established that the only reason anyone was less than completely on board with That Character Who Everyone Else Loved Even Though She Kept Selling Them Out was because they were unthinking speciesist bigots and/or secretly the most evil person on earth. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by Julia

[DearEvette]

I think maybe Jesse Pinkman on Breaking Bad is an example of a redemption arc that doesn't fall into woobie.  It has its terrible and tragic moments that make you feel sorry for Jesse in places, but Jesse moves in and out of sympathy throughout the show. So it does happen over the course of the whole show so that by the time he drives off in that car you feel that he has earned it. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by DearEvette

[kathyk24]

I think a woobie is a character who has lots of bad things happen to them that they didn't cause. For example Nick on Grimm is a wobie because he's lost his mother and girlfriend in the span of a few months. Walter Bishop since he caused his suffering by kidnapping Peter and experimenting on children.

[Julia]

I think maybe Jesse Pinkman on Breaking Bad is an example of a redemption arc that doesn't fall into woobie. It has its terrible and tragic moments that make you feel sorry for Jesse in places, but Jesse moves in and out of sympathy throughout the show. So it does happen over the course of the whole show so that by the time he drives off in that car you feel that he has earned it.

Margaret Houlihan in MASH grew a lot over the course of the show from the one-dimensional sort-of-villain of the first season, and she didn't drop any of her beliefs (which were reliably to the authoritarian side of the show's POV) while she did it. I admired that they went down that path instead of dismissing her.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Julia

[ChromaKelly]

I think a woobie is a character who has lots of bad things happen to them that they didn't cause. For example Nick on Grimm is a wobie because he's lost his mother and girlfriend in the span of a few months. Walter Bishop since he caused his suffering by kidnapping Peter and experimenting on children.

I thought a woobie is usually an antogonist character who becomes good. Nick has always been the protagonist on Grimm. Adalind is moving towards woobie. Aww poor thing, had her baby stolen, lost her powers, blah blah.

[proserpina65]

This is VERY true. I loved PBS' "The Guilty" because I like the actors even if the mystery was a little dumb in the end. But it had three episodes only, and was completely thought out.

 

So did I.  (I thought I was alone in watching it.)  I could've done with maybe one more episode, but that's just because I really like the actor who played the detective's husband, and he's hardly ever in anything which gets shown on this side of the pond.  But yes, the limited number of episodes often benefits shows like this because the producers/writers/directors have to think out the entire plan, rather than simply swaying and bending in the breeze of fan opinion/vagaries of showrunners' preferences.

[Minneapple]

I would classify characters like Damon Salvatore or Chuck Bass as bad boy woobies. They do evil stuff and kind of feel bad but then keep doing evil stuff and then maybe something bad happens to them and POOF THAT MEANS REDEMPTION. After all the horrible stuff Chuck Bass did in season three of Gossip Girl, his redemption involved him...getting shot. Not actually doing anything to redeem himself for selling Blair for the hotel or having sex with Jenny who he tried to rape in season one. I'd also put Regina from Once in this category. For someone who's on a redemption quest, she sure as hell hasn't felt any remorse or done anything to redeem herself for killing Graham. She actually had a storyline last year where nothing was her fault, she only did all the bad stuff because of the way she was written.

 

A clear indication of a bad boy woobie is when other characters, usually good guys, put up with the woobie's bad actions for...whatever reason. Like a day after Damon snapped her brother's neck, Elena was taking a road trip with Damon and he suddenly had the moral high ground on her. On iZombie right now, about the only stain on the show is Blaine, who is a killer, who killed Liv's boyfriend last year, but hey, Blaine, let's work together, because. Uh. You say amusing things? Dick Casablancas urged his brother to rape Veronica. BUT HE'S SO FUNNY LET'S MAKE EVERYONE FEEL SORRY FOR HIM.

 

Notably, the writers of SHIELD have NOT gone down the woobie redemption path with Ward, which would have been so typical and easy to do. In fact I was dreading it after season one. When Coulson straight up told Ward to fuck off, when Jemma stood between him and Skye, I nearly wept tears of relief. Since then the writers have made clear that Ward was always evil, that he's EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL. And yet there are STILL people who ask about Ward's redemption and a possible romance with Daisy! Which BLOWS MY MIND. 

 

Nikita and Angel are two redemption arcs that have actually worked for me. They're series-long redemptions; the characters never feel redeemed for their actions. And they actually try, physically try, to fix their past actions. It's not just making sadface and having bad stuff happen to them.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Minneapple

[Julia]

Notably, the writers of SHIELD have NOT gone down the woobie redemption path with Ward, which would have been so typical and easy to do. In fact I was dreading it after season one. When Coulson straight up told Ward to fuck off, when Jemma stood between him and Skye, I nearly wept tears of relief. Since then the writers have made clear that Ward was always evil, that he's EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL. And yet there are STILL people who ask about Ward's redemption and a possible romance with Daisy! Which BLOWS MY MIND. 

 

Unfortunately, they have headed in a woobish direction with 'Daisy.' I wonder if half of Ward's evil isn't directly in the service of making her own unfortunate choices (which I don't think she ever owned) look mild by comparison.

[Minneapple]

I don't think Daisy was ever evil. Unfortunate choices do not mean evil. There were Sue-ish issues with Skye in season one (usually Coulson droning on about how amazing she was), but I wouldn't call her a woobie. I like her about ten thousand times better now as Daisy, though. Maybe it's the haircut.

 

(And in fact SHIELD is a damn good show. The chemistry between the actors and their characters on the show is great. Daisy and Mack have a really nice friendship.)

[Chaos Theory]

The reason I hate terms like woobie is because you just can't have a bad guy character on a long running show and not have bad things happen to him or her. Just like you just can't have good things happen to the good guys. It's how they respond to the things happening. Do they learn from it or do they keep trucking on. Either way those bad...and good things are further markers on who they are as a character.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The reason I hate terms like woobie is because you just can't have a bad guy character on a long running show and not have bad things happen to him or her. Just like you just can't have good things happen to the good guys. It's how they respond to the things happening. Do they learn from it or do they keep trucking on. Either way those bad...and good things are further markers on who they are as a character.

 

Then you'll love this next one. Or not.

 

Reset switch.

 

Otherwise known as "The writers can't think of a way to have the characters learn from their behavior, so they're going to sweep whatever happened under the rug and hope that viewers will ignore it." And again, BTVS was a major victim of this, although I expect that there are plenty of other shows to suffer from it. I suppose it's true to life that people make the same mistakes over and over again, repeating the same behavior in the hopes of getting different results, but why TV so often uses the reset switch baffles me when so much more often we grow and change and learn not to do whatever it was we did that screwed things up.

[lucindabelle]

The ghost of Darth vader dancing at the ewok campfire. Sure he slaughtered billions but now we lurv him!

[Julia]

I don't think Daisy was ever evil. Unfortunate choices do not mean evil. There were Sue-ish issues with Skye in season one (usually Coulson droning on about how amazing she was), but I wouldn't call her a woobie. I like her about ten thousand times better now as Daisy, though. Maybe it's the haircut.

 

(And in fact SHIELD is a damn good show. The chemistry between the actors and their characters on the show is great. Daisy and Mack have a really nice friendship.)

 

Well, as I said, I gave up after X amount of make Skye happen, at about the time when Clark Gregg started abusing viewers about their obligation as fans to wait out the unsatisfying show until they were good and ready to do something interesting. But then, it's a Whedon show corporate synergy is keeping on the air.

 

I do see they solved their Skye problem by having her cease to be Skye, which sounds about right. I'm glad for fans of the woman who plays her, although I still think they ascended the weakest actor.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Julia

[DearEvette]

I have some Walking Dead UOs in the face of the most recent episode (which I finally watched)

 

1. I would not have been upset if Glenn died.  I am glad he is alive, but I would have been fine if he had died. 

2. Not sure if this is a UO or not but it feels as if it is but Rick is my favorite character and I would be really upset if Rick died.  To me, he is the central character of the show and his death would be the thing that would make me stop watching.

3. That includes Carol. Hey I enjoy badass Carole, but not above all else.  Sure she is a good soldier to have in the ZA and her character evolution has been fun to see, but I also would not be super upset if she also bought it. Added to that, I don't revere her as some Killer Warrior Goddess that apparently the show is making her out to be to the detriment of all the other characters whose own character evolutions  seem to have stopped during their stay in Alexandria.

4. I like Carl. And his dumb hat.  Sorry. Not really.

[ganesh]

Carl had nearly the best line of the series. I don't know if it's UO or not, but I would love the series to end with Rick's death, but he doesn't turn.

[Rick Kitchen]

Or with Rick still being in the hospital and it was all a dream?

[ganesh]

Talk about fans rioting.

[Guest]

I have some Walking Dead UOs in the face of the most recent episode (which I finally watched)

 

I agree with all of those.  I'll raise you with this.  All in all, the Grady Memorial arc was better than this zombie horde/ASZ/Wolf arc. And knowing what know now.  Beth centric is better than Morgan, Deanna, Daryl, Abraham/Sasha centric.

 

I was going to say that Beth's singing is no longer the worst thing to happen on this show.  But I watched a clip to prove it and that's not true.  Still the worst thing to ever happen.

Edited December 2, 2015 by ParadoxLost

[topanga]

UO: I like Shonda Rhimes. Full disclosure: I stopped watching Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, and Private Practice when they started to suck, and I never got into HTGAWM, but I've always admired her success and her work ethic. And for some reason, she's been characterized as bitchy and bossy by some people in the industry, but in the interviews I've seen, she's the exact opposite. Is it because she's a powerful woman that she's labeled as bitchy? Would anyone say that about Joss Whedon or Guillermo del Toro?

[Cobalt Stargazer]

UO: I like Shonda Rhimes. Full disclosure: I stopped watching Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, and Private Practice when they started to suck, and I never got into HTGAWM, but I've always admired her success and her work ethic. And for some reason, she's been characterized as bitchy and bossy by some people in the industry, but in the interviews I've seen, she's the exact opposite. Is it because she's a powerful woman that she's labeled as bitchy? Would anyone say that about Joss Whedon or Guillermo del Toro?

 

I don't know about del Toro, but considering that the industry consistently snubbed Whedon for the Emmy he was clearly bucking so hard for until 2009, he might not have as many friends in the business as you're presuming. I think he's critically successful a lot of the time, in that his shows get good reviews, but that doesn't always add up to advertising dollars, which is what impresses the suits most. And that's not even mentioning the death threats he got from fans when Willow's girlfriend got killed off by a magic bullet.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[Julia]

I don't know about del Toro, but considering that the industry consistently snubbed Whedon for the Emmy he was clearly bucking so hard for until 2009, he might not have as many friends in the business as you're presuming. I think he's critically successful a lot of the time, in that his shows get good reviews, but that doesn't always add up to advertising dollars, which is what impresses the suits most. And that's not even mentioning the death threats he got from fans when Willow's girlfriend got killed off by a magic bullet.

 

And I think if the suits were on board the piss off as many fans as possible for lulz train his shows wouldn't get cancelled so fast. Even in the wake of The Biggest Movie Ever, there are frequently articles about how SHIELD would be history if it weren't for the tie in with the movie franchise.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't know about del Toro, but considering that the industry consistently snubbed Whedon for the Emmy he was clearly bucking so hard for until 2009, he might not have as many friends in the business as you're presuming. I think he's critically successful a lot of the time, in that his shows get good reviews, but that doesn't always add up to advertising dollars, which is what impresses the suits most. And that's not even mentioning the death threats he got from fans when Willow's girlfriend got killed off by a magic bullet.

Death threats? Really? People.

Success is measured differently by different groups. Science fiction gets no love even really good science fiction. The Battlestar Galactica remake is a prime example of that. It is on many peoples top 10 list of best shows lists and....no awards that aren't special fx.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Chaos Theory

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Death threats? Really? People.

 

I couldn't make it up if I tried.

[ganesh]

Honestly, Farscape was better then BSG. 

[allyw]

UO: I like Shonda Rhimes. Full disclosure: I stopped watching Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, and Private Practice when they started to suck, and I never got into HTGAWM, but I've always admired her success and her work ethic. And for some reason, she's been characterized as bitchy and bossy by some people in the industry, but in the interviews I've seen, she's the exact opposite. Is it because she's a powerful woman that she's labeled as bitchy? Would anyone say that about Joss Whedon or Guillermo del Toro?

 

I think it's both her race and gender. A woman is not supposed to be bossy and set rules and a black woman who knows her worth and won't put up with other's crap is a bitch.

[junemeatcleaver]

 

I don't know about del Toro, but considering that the industry consistently snubbed Whedon for the Emmy he was clearly bucking so hard for until 2009, he might not have as many friends in the business as you're presuming.

 

Whedon had enough fans to get to write and direct big budget films even with all the television flops under his belt.

[supposebly]

 

but why TV so often uses the reset switch baffles me when so much more often we grow and change and learn not to do whatever it was we did that screwed things up.

My theory: The show is running too long, they run out of ideas, characters have been killed off and the writers can't be arsed to introduce new interesting but different characters. Of course it's no excuse and especially not when it happens in a show's second season.

I swear, having a show on network TV longer than 5 years kills almost everything there is about it. There is a reason why stories have endings. If they don't they kind of just...wither. With a few good episodes in between to make it look less....sad. I'm not sure how unpopular that is, though.

[Julia]

Whedon had enough fans to get to write and direct big budget films even with all the television flops under his belt.

 

but judging from how many shows he's been given and had avidly promoted by critics and how few people watched them, I wonder whether he isn't a Woody Allen-style success d'estime, who's popular with influencers but can't get the public at large on board. His non-franchise movies in the wake of the Avengers were much closer to Whedon numbers than Marvel numbers.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I think it's both her race and gender. A woman is not supposed to be bossy and set rules and a black woman who knows her worth and won't put up with other's crap is a bitch.

 

Not to start up a big debate, but I think its worth pointing out that Rhimes'  main achievements as far as her TV work goes are Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. The former featured the Love Triangle of Death, not to mention McDreamy/McSteamy/.McGMAFB, and the second features the Olitz relationship. If Whedon or Abrams or whoever else was behind the same kind of thing, I think plenty of people would be criticizing them. And have criticized them. See both BTVS and Lost. No one is immune, particularly with the proliferation of social media. Hell, George Lucas has been revealed to be dodging exposure to the 'net for fifteen years out of worry that people will criticize his work, and he created Star Wars. Granted, over a decade seems extreme, but considering how much crazy there is out there in cyberspace, I can see why people get leery of it.

[Guest]

but judging from how many shows he's been given and had avidly promoted by critics and how few people watched them, I wonder whether he isn't a Woody Allen-style success d'estime, who's popular with influencers but can't get the public at large on board. His non-franchise movies in the wake of the Avengers were much closer to Whedon numbers than Marvel numbers.

 

What non franchise movies has he actually done since Avengers?  There was Much Ado About Nothing which was a glorified home movie he filmed with his actor friends at his house.  I can't think of a non-franchise movie he's made that would have been expected to get any kind of substantial box office numbers.

[Julia]

Cabin in the Woods came out around the same time as the then highest-grossing film of all time, and shared a star with it. And you're absolutely right, nobody expected that more than a tiny fraction of the people who went to see the Marvel-franchise Avengers would go see it. Which was kind of my point. The Avengers may be a measure of his ability to get hired, but not really of the audience for his work, JMO.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Julia

[allyw]

Not to start up a big debate, but I think its worth pointing out that Rhimes' main achievements as far as her TV work goes are Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. The former featured the Love Triangle of Death, not to mention McDreamy/McSteamy/.McGMAFB, and the second features the Olitz relationship. If Whedon or Abrams or whoever else was behind the same kind of thing, I think plenty of people would be criticizing them. And have criticized them. See both BTVS and Lost. No one is immune, particularly with the proliferation of social media. Hell, George Lucas has been revealed to be dodging exposure to the 'net for fifteen years out of worry that people will criticize his work, and he created Star Wars. Granted, over a decade seems extreme, but considering how much crazy there is out there in cyberspace, I can see why people get leery of it.

There's a difference between critiquing someone's work and the person themselves. And unless I misinterpreted the poster I quoted, we were both talking about the latter. Both people you cited work has been critiqued but I don't remember anyone referring to them as bossy and bitchy.

[topanga]

 

Not to start up a big debate, but I think its worth pointing out that Rhimes'  main achievements as far as her TV work goes are Grey's Anatomy and Scandal. The former featured the Love Triangle of Death, not to mention McDreamy/McSteamy/.McGMAFB, and the second features the Olitz relationship. If Whedon or Abrams or whoever else was behind the same kind of thing, I think plenty of people would be criticizing them. And have criticized them. See both BTVS and Lost. No one is immune, particularly with the proliferation of social media.

I hear ya, Cobalt Stargazer, but criticism of Shonda Rhimes extends beyond her storylines and love triangles. People criticize her as a person, suggesting she has no right to exist, much less create television. 

 

I never heard similar criticism about the creators or show runners of ER, even when the deteriorated into a glorified soap opera. People criticized the show, yes, but no one ever called Jack Orman (showrunner) a terrible person, a hack, and a racist. 

 

Then again, I totally agree with you that the explosion of the Internet and social media means that people go online and post some vile shit about celebrities. So maybe they would have said those things about Orman if the opportunities existed. So maybe we're on the same side of the argument??????

[Cobalt Stargazer]

There's a difference between critiquing someone's work and the person themselves. And unless I misinterpreted the poster I quoted, we were both talking about the latter. Both people you cited work has been critiqued but I don't remember anyone referring to them as bossy and bitchy.

 

As I mentioned upthread, Joss Whedon got death threats from outraged fans when Tara Maclay was shot and killed in the generally abysmal sixth season of BTVS. IMO that goes way beyond calling someone bossy and bitchy. Whether or not they actually meant it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant, nor is it relevant that killing off Tara was an incredibly poor choice, again IMO. Just the fact that anyone would say that someone deserves to die because of letting an imaginary person get killed indicates the presence of issues I'm pretty sure I don't want to know about.

 

Further, if you're going to say that no one should criticize Rhimes as a person, then okay, sure. But if we extrapolate from the dragging out of the Olivia/Fitz relationshit Dane Cook*, I don't see how it could be just the network insisting that it go on and on and on. She's the showrunner (I think), and more than that she created the show. If they're following her vision, and her vision is that a dysfunctional mess like Olivia and Fitz's "love" is somehow desirable since they can't quit each other, doesn't that deserve a bit of side-eye? If it's true that all writers put a bit of themselves into their work (Hi, EL James!) then what do we take away about Rhimes' views on relationships that Olitz is what she came up with?

 

*I normally hate Cook's brand of humor, but 'relatonshit' is a word I've been trying to work into my every day conversation for a while.

[allyw]

As I mentioned upthread, Joss Whedon got death threats from outraged fans when Tara Maclay was shot and killed in the generally abysmal sixth season of BTVS. IMO that goes way beyond calling someone bossy and bitchy. Whether or not they actually meant it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant, nor is it relevant that killing off Tara was an incredibly poor choice, again IMO. Just the fact that anyone would say that someone deserves to die because of letting an imaginary person get killed indicates the presence of issues I'm pretty sure I don't want to know about.

Further, if you're going to say that no one should criticize Rhimes as a person, then okay, sure. But if we extrapolate from the dragging out of the Olivia/Fitz relationshit Dane Cook*, I don't see how it could be just the network insisting that it go on and on and on. She's the showrunner (I think), and more than that she created the show. If they're following her vision, and her vision is that a dysfunctional mess like Olivia and Fitz's "love" is somehow desirable since they can't quit each other, doesn't that deserve a bit of side-eye? If it's true that all writers put a bit of themselves into their work (Hi, EL James!) then what do we take away about Rhimes' views on relationships that Olitz is what she came up with?

*I normally hate Cook's brand of humor, but 'relatonshit' is a word I've been trying to work into my every day conversation for a while.

Critiquing any of of Shonda's shows is critiquing her work- nothing I have a problem with. Saying she's bossy and bitchy is something completely different and I don't see how that translates to the actual content of her body of work. This is no different than me calling my boss bossy and bitchy if she implemented a new policy that I simple didn't like for whatever reason.

And furthermore, Shonda has said on more than one occasion that Olivia doesn't seem to realize that love isn't supposed to hurt so I'm not sure where you're getting that she thinks Fitz and Olivia's relationship is desirable.

As for fans sending JJ Abrahams or any other person death threats over their work, they are simple fucking loons who should be locked up in a padded room. And I wouldn't compare it to the Shonda issue (unless she was also sent death threats) because that's like comparing apples to oranges- two different things.

Edited December 3, 2015 by allyw

[TattleTeeny]

Appropro to nothing - I went to college with a boy who looked just like Hermie the Dental Elf, including the hair swoop in front.  His real name was Andrew Jackson.  I don't know which was funnier.

 

I think Hermie grew up to be Conan O'Brien.