The GoT Effect: Once Great Shows That Got So Bad They Sent You Into A Rage Spiral

[DoctorAtomic]

No, I think the point is that all these shows that imploded could have been avoided without much more effort in planning this framework type approach. It's just odd that this isn't really the norm. 

[Mabinogia]

There are different types of shows. For a character driven type show, having the plot laid out isn't important. What is important is having the character bio laid out. That way, when the plot goes in crazy directions, the writing staff know how the character would react avoiding fans going "that is out of character!" 

If the show is plot driven, especially if it is a mystery, then yes, I do think they need to 1) know what the resolution of the mystery or story is going to be, and 2) several plot points that have to happen within the story in order to get to the end. 

If, for example, you are the head writer of Lost, you better know, going in, what makes the island magical. Otherwise you get...well, what we got. Some seasons it's a shady organization, some seasons it's supernatural, some seasons it's some kind of religious allegory. If you're writing Game of Thrones, honestly, it doesn't matter so much if you know from the start who will sit on the Iron throne as the story is more of an evolution and that could change based on things that happen over the seasons. 

The difference is, who ended up on the Iron throne was a result of all that happened before it. Everything in the show was a step towards the conclusion. With the Island, it was a character, it wasn't a future event but something that already was what it was. The Island wasn't evolving but was the thing pushing the story forward so the writers should have had a deep understanding of the nature of the island, what it was, why it was. 

I think that unless the show is built on a mystery that the audience is supposed to be able to solve, then the whole story doesn't need to be mapped out but it is nice when you can rewatch a show with a "mystery" and be able to see the hints along the way. Like The Good Place. The creator knew from the start what story he was telling and what surprises were going to happen and it shows in all the little details that just seemed cute or funny the first viewing but were clear signs of what was coming when you watch knowing how it ends. I also deeply admire Schur for not going for the money by adding needless seasons and sticking to the timeline for the show he had in his mind. 

I do think that is where a lot of shows with a clear 3 act structure go wrong. The show is a hit, they keep adding seasons because they want to milk it for all it's worth and in doing so they screw up their story arc and often ruin their show. 

[Vermicious Knid]

I tried to watch Lost and was bored. Very, very bored. And this is from a dedicated Xphile.

[DoctorAtomic]

Oh, from my time with the X Files, as soon as people started talking about Lost, I knew it wouldn't hold up. 

 

[Danielg342]

On 9/21/2021 at 1:15 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Of course which is why I said in a previous post that having a framework makes sense. But at the same time I know I have seen cases where people talk about how shows have everything planned out from the very start like it is a good thing, and I am thinking that more often than not it wouldn't be.

The evidence I think is pretty clear that if a showrunner is too rigid in "sticking to the plan" (How I Met Your Mother) it can be just as disastrous as not having a plan at all. TV series have so many uncontrollable variables that writers need to be open-minded and flexible.

On 9/21/2021 at 3:06 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

No, I think the point is that all these shows that imploded could have been avoided without much more effort in planning this framework type approach. It's just odd that this isn't really the norm. 

I'll speak from my own experience when I was on a role-playing forum (which I won't identify because my experience there was decidedly unpleasant). I remember coming up with a million ideas for new stories and excitedly starting threads only to lose interest very quickly because I never considered if the narrative I came up with was worth exploring, let alone having simply thought it through.

So I can imagine there are probably a lot of writers who come to Hollywood (or are already established in Hollywood) who present their "cool new idea" that they came up with, and some of them end up actually getting produced. Now, I grant that the kinds of stories that end up in production are probably more developed than what I would come up with on a RP forum, but it wouldn't surprise me if, essentially, the same thing happens in Hollywood. Hollywood is a business at its roots, and you don't succeed at business without taking chances.

So if a producer has a creator pitching a series that has a cool concept, the producer would be foolish to pass on it if the producer feels it's got potential. Even if that creator doesn't have a five-year plan or even if, three months into production, the creator and/or the producer loses interest- trying and failing is better than missing out on something that became a hit.

I'll go even further- I'm sure there are Hollywood producers who might not even like a creator coming to them with a series that's been mapped out for years on end. A series that can go on forever will be seen as a bigger cash cow than a series with a time limit, no matter how much better the latter may be. Which means Hollywood probably prefers people who "make it up as they go along" because if they produce a hit, they can "make it up" forever.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Danielg342

[Haleth]

Despite all its flaws, I still think Lost is arguably one of the best shows that was ever on tv.  It was groundbreaking in scope and original in content.  Sure, it floundered, but that first season?  Every revelation was jaw dropping.  None of the copycats ever came close.

[roamyn]

On 9/19/2021 at 12:29 PM, Blergh said:

Agree but the writers wanted the viewers to think they did- even when they were dumping side characters and offshoot storylines the viewers largely loathed. 

Still, considering its IMO awful end, I have ZERO regrets in having said 'never again' after dumping it shortly after Season Three got underway (and that's why I will NEVER trust J.J. Abrams   not to turn  any kind of television or movie enterprise  he's been given into a meanspirited, taunting and  complete bummer).

I thought LOST’s ending was brilliant.  I just don’t think people got it.  It was too high minded for most. 

[ABay]

No doubt we were also just jealous...

Lost used some narrative devices which, while not necessarily new, were done in innovative ways. Like the way the show used flashbacks and then flash forward, and how many episodes would start from one place with multiple characters and then follow each character from that starting point in a different episode. In season 6, for example, a several episodes began with the same scene on the plane as experienced by different characters. There were also interesting callbacks/parallels where a similar scene was replayed in a later episode. My favorite was watching "The Man from Tallahassee" (season 3) and then "Dead is Dead" back to back (I think..titles not my strong suit) and seeing Ben and Locke physically and metaphorically trade places. A lot was crap on Craphole Island but a  lot was also good.

Had season 6 been better overall, I think a lot of negative reaction to the finale would've been averted. Unfortunately, Darlton seemed to go out of their way to disappoint. For what it's worth, I think Lost was it its very best from the back half of season 3 through the end of season 4. As a result of the writers' strike, season 4 had fewer episodes and a much tighter storyline than most of the other seasons.

Edited September 22, 2021 by ABay

[DoctorAtomic]

That's definitely a show that needed to be tighter. Sitcoms for the most part and lots of procedurals can be made up.

Don't forget, the key argument here is that TPTB themselves said, 'there is a plan in place and they're not dead' and there wasn't. I don't think we would be talking if it was some anthology of how the island impacted this group of people and then they died. Or even if they were dead and had to use the island to gain their redemption. It doesn't set right with me to take advantage of your viewers. So, it's not actually the show per se. 

And sure, I liked the diverse cast, and the setting. I mean, 'we have to go back', was probably the second best line in tv after 'guys, where are we'.

It was a show that didn't fit the model of tv at the time but had to get jammed into it. Whereas now, the show might likely excel on the right platform. 

 

[Mabinogia]

11 hours ago, roamyn said:

I thought LOST’s ending was brilliant.

I didn't actually hate the ending in and of itself. But...

7 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Don't forget, the key argument here is that TPTB themselves said, 'there is a plan in place and they're not dead' and there wasn't.

So the ending felt like it either got changed or they were lying. 

7 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't think we would be talking if it was some anthology of how the island impacted this group of people and then they died. Or even if they were dead and had to use the island to gain their redemption.

I would have loved it if the show was an anthology with a different group of castaways each season who have to learn something or gain redemption or some such. There could be a few who stick around, become part of the Island or what have you. I think it kind of sort of tried a bit to be that way, with some storylines resolving and new ones turning up, but for whatever reason the juggling of storylines was a bit of a hot mess. 

I will say, Lost had some of the most iconic lines/moments on television and I don't regret taking the ride, even if it was a crazy one at times. 

I kind of would love to see a condensed version of the show, all the best bits with way less of the filler. 

[DoctorAtomic]

They could have still had a 'guardian' or some such even. No reason to even keep it in the present. You could have had first season with 21st century cast, then 19th, etc. too. 

[Llywela]

I never really got into Lost - I caught odd episodes through the first season and then gave up. Looking back, it was the supposedly engrossing mystery and all the fantasy elements that put me off, really. Weirdly enough, I think if the show had been a straightforward character drama about a group of plane crash survivors stuck on an island together, trying to figure out how to survive and get help, I probably would have enjoyed it more! But it also probably wouldn't have run for 5 years.

[Guest]

On 9/22/2021 at 7:38 AM, roamyn said:

I thought LOST’s ending was brilliant.  I just don’t think people got it.  It was too high minded for most. 

I agree with this.  People didn't get it.  But having half the audience not actually understand the ending makes it not brilliant.  I remember the morning after Lost's finale the local radio station was talking about it and I was dumbfounded that they had a fully different understanding for the ending than I did.  Of course, I assumed I was right but who the hell knows.  I don't think they intended it to be ambiguous and I don't hold to the idea that the viewers are too dumb to get it.

Seinfeld is another show that I thought had a bad ending but was actually clever.  But I've never actually encountered anyone who saw the thing in it that I thought was clever (and I only thought it clever because they never outright said it). Putting them on trial for criminal indifference and parading a history of that kind of behavior made a show that was notoriously about "nothing"  retroactively entirely about something.

 

 

[Llywela]

Or, we could acknowledge the possibility that viewers understood the ending perfectly well, but disliked it anyway.

[Danielg342]

20 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

Seinfeld is another show that I thought had a bad ending but was actually clever.  But I've never actually encountered anyone who saw the thing in it that I thought was clever (and I only thought it clever because they never outright said it). Putting them on trial for criminal indifference and parading a history of that kind of behavior made a show that was notoriously about "nothing"  retroactively entirely about something.

I can't speak for Lost but for Seinfeld I do believe it may have been too clever for its own good. I remember during its original run that, while I found it funny, I also felt the show was quite mean in its tone, relying too much on the suffering of its characters for a punchline. I remember distinctly disliking the finale not just because I thought it was utter nonsense but also because it amped up the characters' suffering to 11.

However, when I look back at the show now, I realize the suffering of the characters was the point. Perhaps Seinfeld's greatest genius is taking the idea that the protagonists are inherently sympathetic and turning it on its head- even though Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer were the focus of the series, you weren't supposed to root for them. Rather, you wanted to see them get their comeuppance, with the finale being the greatest comeuppance of them all.

We have to remember that Seinfeld debuted at a time when TV started to turn away from the ironclad heroes and the "wholesome" programming and began to embrace darker themes, like All In The Family and Married...With Children did. In those two cases, there were at least points where you could have some sympathy for the characters (since not everyone was designed to be mean), but for the characters of Seinfeld, they were as jerkish as they come. This may have been lost on viewers which led to how polarized the finale turned out to be.

[Cloud9Shopper]

New Amsterdam (NBC medical drama) is quickly going this way. I really enjoyed the first two seasons because it had a good premise with the idealistic medical director (Max) who wants to fix a broken healthcare system and really seemed to care about the staff. Max deals with cancer and the loss of his wife in the first two seasons but the show still had good writing so it was worth hanging on to. Plus, Ryan Eggold is a solid actor and fairly attractive.

The show is in its fourth season and is going off the rails like it’s trying to be canceled. Max spent S3 running around the hospital with some new bonkers cause of the week, like decreasing glove use for climate change. He finally hooks up with Helen, and they are the show’s main ship, but we keep seeing Helen seemingly regretting her decision and the show is now trying to move them to London for some reason. 

There’s also a surgeon (Floyd) who’s in a poly relationship that has some of the most obvious non-chemistry ever and another ER doc (Lauren) who supposedly paid a bribe to get her girlfriend a residency spot at the hospital and can’t seem to cope when girlfriend isn’t on the same shift as her. Lauren is an addict so her behavior can be partly attributed to that but it’s just all so absurd at this point. 

TL;DR: Over the top, clown writing and characters who aren’t even remotely realistic are tanking this show.  

[Danielg342]

8 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

New Amsterdam (NBC medical drama) is quickly going this way. I really enjoyed the first two seasons because it had a good premise with the idealistic medical director (Max) who wants to fix a broken healthcare system and really seemed to care about the staff. Max deals with cancer and the loss of his wife in the first two seasons but the show still had good writing so it was worth hanging on to. Plus, Ryan Eggold is a solid actor and fairly attractive.

The show is in its fourth season and is going off the rails like it’s trying to be canceled. Max spent S3 running around the hospital with some new bonkers cause of the week, like decreasing glove use for climate change. He finally hooks up with Helen, and they are the show’s main ship, but we keep seeing Helen seemingly regretting her decision and the show is now trying to move them to London for some reason. 

There’s also a surgeon (Floyd) who’s in a poly relationship that has some of the most obvious non-chemistry ever and another ER doc (Lauren) who supposedly paid a bribe to get her girlfriend a residency spot at the hospital and can’t seem to cope when girlfriend isn’t on the same shift as her. Lauren is an addict so her behavior can be partly attributed to that but it’s just all so absurd at this point. 

TL;DR: Over the top, clown writing and characters who aren’t even remotely realistic are tanking this show.  

I'm glad I dumped New Amsterdam after the first half of the season. I thought it was getting ridiculous then. I see it's even more ridiculous now (not surprising since most shows get more ridiculous the longer they're on).

I remember really wanting to like NA, because I enjoyed Ryan Eggold on The Blacklist and I was thrilled he was finally getting his very own vehicle to showcase his talents (I know that he was technically the lead in The Blacklist's ill-fated Redemption spin-off (which I also believed deserved a better fate), but that show still operated under the original's shadow and NA was Eggold's first opportunity to play an entirely new character and be the focal point in an entirely different fictional universe). While I don't think Eggold is at all at fault for NA's failures and I'm glad that NA is a hit, because he deserves it, I feel the series is way too overwrought and serious for its own good. I remember writing that the show is too emotional for its own good, because they try way too hard to have this "uplifting medical drama" that it all appears fake. The conflicts are way too abstract and lack depth, making them much harder to get into.

[methodwriter85]

On 10/14/2021 at 3:47 AM, Danielg342 said:

I'm glad I dumped New Amsterdam after the first half of the season. I thought it was getting ridiculous then. I see it's even more ridiculous now (not surprising since most shows get more ridiculous the longer they're on).

I remember really wanting to like NA, because I enjoyed Ryan Eggold on The Blacklist and I was thrilled he was finally getting his very own vehicle to showcase his talents (I know that he was technically the lead in The Blacklist's ill-fated Redemption spin-off (which I also believed deserved a better fate), but that show still operated under the original's shadow and NA was Eggold's first opportunity to play an entirely new character and be the focal point in an entirely different fictional universe). While I don't think Eggold is at all at fault for NA's failures and I'm glad that NA is a hit, because he deserves it, I feel the series is way too overwrought and serious for its own good. I remember writing that the show is too emotional for its own good, because they try way too hard to have this "uplifting medical drama" that it all appears fake. The conflicts are way too abstract and lack depth, making them much harder to get into.

NBC lucked into success with This is Us and they (as well as ABC) have been trying to replicate the earnestly overwrought, sentimental feeling of This is Us on too many shows, even on shows where it doesn't make sense. (Fox, on the other hand, seems to be leaning more into trying to make more Empires and 9-1-1's.) I mean, at the end of the day, New Amsterdam is a procedural but they try and produce it like it's overly sentimental family drama. Like at times it feels like something that Michael Landon might have done if he were still with us. 

This is Us I generally gave up on during the third season, because Randall became absolutely insufferable when he made Deja his pet project and decided to move his entire family to Philadelphia because he wanted to feel closer to his dearly departed sperm donor. Also, I felt like I had been presented with the show being a low-key family drama with the gimmick that we're going back and forth throughout this one family's lives. However the show just kept getting more and more ridiculous with retro-continuity "twists" meant to both shock the viewer and emotionally manipulate us and I just couldn't take more of that. Brothers and Sisters at least managed to admit they were a primetime soap. LOL. 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

6 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

This is Us I generally gave up on during the third season, because Randall became absolutely insufferable when he made Deja his pet project and decided to move his entire family to Philadelphia because he wanted to feel closer to his dearly departed sperm donor. Also, I felt like I had been presented with the show being a low-key family drama with the gimmick that we're going back and forth throughout this one family's lives. However the show just kept getting more and more ridiculous with retro-continuity "twists" meant to both shock the viewer and emotionally manipulate us and I just couldn't take more of that. Brothers and Sisters at least managed to admit they were a primetime soap. LOL. 

 

This Is Us has not been the same since Sterling won the Emmy.  Season 3 became the Randall show due to this.  The writers forgot they were supposed to be writing an ensemble show and began devoting there energy to outrageous Randall plots. The show also has lost it's touch with plot twists.  What was once a real surprise, is now telegraphed episodes in advance by bad and predictable writing. 

I will still watch the final season even though I can figure out how it is going to end.  

[methodwriter85]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

This Is Us has not been the same since Sterling won the Emmy.  Season 3 became the Randall show due to this.  The writers forgot they were supposed to be writing an ensemble show and began devoting there energy to outrageous Randall plots. The show also has lost it's touch with plot twists.  What was once a real surprise, is now telegraphed episodes in advance by bad and predictable writing. 

I will still watch the final season even though I can figure out how it is going to end.  

Randall running for Philadelphia city council was just too unbelievable for me. The only development that felt believable to me was Tess turning out to be a lesbian. I did check out the premiere of season 4 and then bounced again. I used to joke that they were going to have Kyle turn out to be alive and at this point I think the writers might actually go there. 

 

[Enero]

On 8/20/2021 at 2:01 PM, andromeda331 said:

That's one of my top three. Once Upon a Time and General Hospital are the other two. All three were really great shows. I loved Sleepy Hollow and I even loved all the main characters which is very rare. It was so fun to watch.

I agree on the first two. Never was a consistent watcher of GH so can’t comment too much on its descent into disaster. 😂  I recently rewatched some of OUAT. I’d forgotten how superb S1 was. So interesting and creative, but after that season, the show really started to spiral.

Don’t even get me started on Sleepy Hollow. I agree. All the characters were likeable. It was one of those shows I immensely enjoyed escaping to each week. How the producers, writers, whomever was in charge, managed to torpedo that show is still baffling to me. It was a classic case of trying to fix what wasn’t broke which essentially destroyed the show. 

[MissAlmond]

3 hours ago, Enero said:

Don’t even get me started on Sleepy Hollow. I agree. All the characters were likeable. It was one of those shows I immensely enjoyed escaping to each week. How the producers, writers, whomever was in charge, managed to torpedo that show is still baffling to me. It was a classic case of trying to fix what wasn’t broke which essentially destroyed the show. 

SLEEPY HOLLOW!  Slowly I turned. . . step by step . . . inch by inch . . .

[DoctorAtomic]

Sleepy Hollow is a classic case of not knowing the show you have and forcing it to be the show you want. 

[Mabinogia]

11 hours ago, Enero said:

I recently rewatched some of OUAT. I’d forgotten how superb S1 was. So interesting and creative, but after that season, the show really started to spiral.

Perfect example of someone coming up with a great concept but having no clue how to sustain it. The idea of OUAT was great, the duel show of them in the modern world and flashbacks of them in Fairytale world was cool and interesting. Then it all crashed and burned because they kept piling new characters and new ideas on and the show runners had a serious case of villain apologia that basically ruined at least two great villains (I'm thinking of Rumple and Regina, both of whom I loved in the beginning. I only maintained my love of Regina because of her amazing wardrobe and my love of the actress but Rumple was one of the greatest examples of how to royally destroy a great character). 

[Shannon L.]

Grimm was also a fun, interesting and creative show, but after one unforgivable act by a female character, it just never felt right to me again.  I did keep watching it and it just kept getting worse.  I finished it, but it wasn't easy.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Shannon L.

[kathyk24]

Grimm had the best adult friendships I've ever seen on tv. Then they ruined the show by having Adalind rape Nick and turning Juliette evil and burning Marie's trailer.

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, kathyk24 said:

Grimm had the best adult friendships I've ever seen on tv. Then they ruined the show by having Adalind rape Nick and turning Juliette evil and burning Marie's trailer.

Well, that description escalated quickly...!

[Danielg342]

1 hour ago, kathyk24 said:

Grimm had the best adult friendships I've ever seen on tv. Then they ruined the show by having Adalind rape Nick and turning Juliette evil and burning Marie's trailer.

@Annber03 This seems appropriate:

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Perfect example of someone coming up with a great concept but having no clue how to sustain it. The idea of OUAT was great, the duel show of them in the modern world and flashbacks of them in Fairytale world was cool and interesting. Then it all crashed and burned because they kept piling new characters and new ideas on and the show runners had a serious case of villain apologia that basically ruined at least two great villains (I'm thinking of Rumple and Regina, both of whom I loved in the beginning. I only maintained my love of Regina because of her amazing wardrobe and my love of the actress but Rumple was one of the greatest examples of how to royally destroy a great character). 

I think about Once Upon A Time the same way that I do about Gotham- "Once" should have been either a police procedural with fairy tale creatures and motifs (though I guess Grimm had that covered) or it should have about a modern version of the fairy tale land. It shouldn't have been both, just like how Gotham should have decided between being a police procedural with Batman characters or a Batman origin story, but not both.

[Spartan Girl]

South Park. Like The Simpsons and Family Guy, it didn’t just bow out gracefully when the going was good. I think the serialization was what really made it jump the shark—that and Trey and Matt deciding to turn it into The Randy Marsh Show to see if they could make him more abhorrent than Peter Griffin, which unfortunately they succeeded with flying colors.

[Vermicious Knid]

Quote

"Once" should have been either a police procedural with fairy tale creatures and motifs

I am waiting and waiting for someone to adapt Vertigo comics Fables. If there was ever a perfect property for a live action series, it's this.

[andromeda331]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:09 PM, kathyk24 said:

Grimm had the best adult friendships I've ever seen on tv. Then they ruined the show by having Adalind rape Nick and turning Juliette evil and burning Marie's trailer.

Rape is one of the issues I have with OUAT. Regina rapes Graham for at least 28 years possibly longer, when he breaks up with her she kills him. The rape and the murder is never mentioned again. Now instead of acknowledging it or pretending it never happened because the writers somehow didn't realize they wrote it that way. The writers chose to make it even worse by having Regina calling out her half-sister Zelena for raping Robin (who was Regina's boyfriend) and got pregnant with his baby. One rapist calling out another rapist doesn't make any of it any better. Robin never actually got to deal with his rape everything was decided by Regina depending on how Regina felt about things. When she decided to give Zelena another chance? Well, who cares what Robin thought. They went the rape scene route again in season seven.

[kathyk24]

28 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Rape is one of the issues I have with OUAT. Regina rapes Graham for at least 28 years possibly longer, when he breaks up with her she kills him. The rape and the murder is never mentioned again. Now instead of acknowledging it or pretending it never happened because the writers somehow didn't realize they wrote it that way. The writers chose to make it even worse by having Regina calling out her half-sister Zelena for raping Robin (who was Regina's boyfriend) and got pregnant with his baby. One rapist calling out another rapist doesn't make any of it any better. Robin never actually got to deal with his rape everything was decided by Regina depending on how Regina felt about things. When she decided to give Zelena another chance? Well, who cares what Robin thought. They went the rape scene route again in season seven.

Grimm tried to claim that the sex between Nick wanted to sleep with Adalind. That wasn't true Nick had a loving relationship with Juliette. He wouldn't have slept with Adalind since she tried to kill his partner Hank.

[scarynikki12]

Don't forget that Adalind raped Hank before she raped Nick. And raping Nick got her pregnant which meant they had to end up together. 

I am still surprised that Regina murdering Graham never came to light. I knew they'd never acknowledge her raping him because the show runners and writers who commented on the subject seem to subscribe to the mentality that a woman can't rape a man but the murder of Graham was right there for character conflict. I know it's not because it would remind people of how horrible Regina was since they happily showed her murdering people almost constantly in the flashbacks. Also they had all of her victims become her cheerleaders so it's not like Emma learning the truth would have irreparably damaged their "friendship" since Emma would likely have apologized to Regina for being the reason Graham tried to break free. Henry would have apologized for his role in Graham's murder since he brought Emma to town in the first place, Snow would have apologized since Regina cast the curse out of hatred for her which then led to Henry bringing Emma to town, and so on. At no point would Regina express remorse for killing Graham but instead would accept the apologies and continue to act like she was the wronged party. 

Meanwhile Rumpelstiltskin would make some snarky remarks before returning to his usual pastime of abusing Belle and harming anyone who gets in his way of seeking power.

[andromeda331]

1 minute ago, scarynikki12 said:

Don't forget that Adalind raped Hank before she raped Nick. And raping Nick got her pregnant which meant they had to end up together. 

I am still surprised that Regina murdering Graham never came to light. I knew they'd never acknowledge her raping him because the show runners and writers who commented on the subject seem to subscribe to the mentality that a woman can't rape a man but the murder of Graham was right there for character conflict. I know it's not because it would remind people of how horrible Regina was since they happily showed her murdering people almost constantly in the flashbacks. Also they had all of her victims become her cheerleaders so it's not like Emma learning the truth would have irreparably damaged their "friendship" since Emma would likely have apologized to Regina for being the reason Graham tried to break free. Henry would have apologized for his role in Graham's murder since he brought Emma to town in the first place, Snow would have apologized since Regina cast the curse out of hatred for her which then led to Henry bringing Emma to town, and so on. At no point would Regina express remorse for killing Graham but instead would accept the apologies and continue to act like she was the wronged party. 

Meanwhile Rumpelstiltskin would make some snarky remarks before returning to his usual pastime of abusing Belle and harming anyone who gets in his way of seeking power.

Ha! Very true!

Belle would keep insisting to everyone that Rumple was still good. He had a good heart. No matter how many people he killed. 

[Hiyo]

Heroes. Prison Break. Seinfeld. Lost.

[TheGreenKnight]

GoT is certainly the poster child for this one. The show sets you up for a fall when you have nearly all the groups being lead by female characters for a change at the end of season 6, only for every one of them to bite the dust and often in very flimsy ways. Daenerys was the last and worst one of all, because they didn't just take her out, they altered her character entirely from strong female hero to batshit crazy without any buildup from point A to point B. The only female characters left with at the end that I still liked were Brienne and Arya. This is probably the worst one because it's the only one where I'd say I have no interest in ever seeing the series again because of that ending.

The Walking Dead. The first two seasons are sort of boilerplate, but the last episode of season 2 onwards to midway through season 5 are brilliant. As soon as the characters enter Alexandria, the show slowly went to crap. And then Negan ruined it altogether. I hung through just hoping the show might improve once they *finally* got rid of him, but then they ended that plot by /not/ killing him and putting him in a jail instead, WTF?? After that, I was pretty much at the edge of quitting and then Rick’s actor left the show. That’s when I was out. Daryl and Carol were great, Maggie was alright even without Glenn, but not enough to keep going with a story that was beyond running on fumes. Whenever I re-watch the series, I stop with the episode where they drive into Alexandria. I think that’s a good ending, since they’d just had the episode titled after the show title, “The Walking Dead,” and I can envision a HEA because of the dialogue at the end of the episode they enter Alexandria, with Michonne convincing Rick to give hope for real life a chance again.

I suppose Once Upon a Time became this to me in season 6. The first four episodes of that season were decent, but I believe a lot of executive meddling happened, they quickly killed off the Hyde storyline, and it became unwatchable. The show had got into a format of having the first half of the season as one storyline and the second half a different storyline because the writers weren’t capable of sustaining their storylines for 22-23 episodes, lol. But someone at ABC thought it would be a good idea to force the writers to make S6 another arc that extended the full season and as expected it was a complete flop. And then to make matters worse, they reboot for season 7 and drop the only fun character left on the show at that point (Rebecca Mader’s character) while keeping on Rumpel, who had run out of gas midway through season 5. I think the fan outcry caused them to bring Mader back later that season, but I didn’t even bother coming back for 7 once I heard they’d dropped her, that really pissed me off. With season 6, I will at least watch the first 4 episodes, the musical episode, and the finale (Jennifer Morrison’s final episode). That’s my ending for the series, I guess.

I thought LOST’s final season was weak (I only liked the non-island scenes for that season, tbh), but I didn’t dislike it so much that it made me angry. Same with Community’s last year. I don’t care for Roseanne’s or The Facts of Life’s last couple of seasons either. Glee was a mess by the end, but I just stopped watching after Finn’s actor passed away, the state of the show didn’t really make me angry. Heroes was a continual letdown, so I suppose *that* one probably does count.

Edited December 11, 2021 by TheGreenKnight

[DoctorAtomic]

11 minutes ago, TheGreenKnight said:

And then Negan ruined it altogether.

I can put up with sub par shows, if there's something here and there that I like. In a show about *zombies*, I could not buy that Negan was this huge cult leader. No one took a shot at him? It's patently absurd. 

I was getting a little weary at that point that EVERYONE the main cast met were just total villains. Not just awful people here and there, but every single group they met. 

[Mabinogia]

15 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Belle would keep insisting to everyone that Rumple was still good. He had a good heart. No matter how many people he killed. 

Making Rumple also the Beast was the worst choice that show ever, and that show made MANY terrible choices. They painted themselves into a corner because they wanted to keep Rumple Rumpling. They clearly had no intention of making him a good guy, so unlike Beauty and the Beast, Belle's love did nothing to change Rumple. So it ended up making Belle look like a total moron for being with him and constantly telling everyone he was a good man. He was not and had no desire to be good. 

Regina's story was very much the same, which is another fail. Having one horrific villain who won't change, not even for love, could be an interesting story, having two, and having neither of them really have to face up to this fact is just poor writing. 

Re: Graham. it almost feels like either the writers forgot he existed and that they'd ever written that storyline, or they seem to have very purposefully ignored the fact that they ever wrote that, which is odd, since, as people have pointed out, while Regina was written as a victim she was also written as constantly doing horrible things, so why erase this one particular thing? 

Given all the inconsistencies in that show it wouldn't surprise me to find out they did not have a show bible and therefore did forget about Graham's storyline. Of all the shows I've ever watched OUAT feels the most like they were just making it up week by week. 

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, TheGreenKnight said:

GoT is certainly the poster child for this one. The show sets you up for a fall when you have nearly all the groups being lead by female characters for a change at the end of season 6, only for every one of them to bite the dust and often in very flimsy ways. Daenerys was the last and worst one of all, because they didn't just take her out, they altered her character entirely from strong female hero to batshit crazy without any buildup from point A to point B. The only female characters left with at the end that I still liked were Brienne and Arya. This is probably the worst one because it's the only one where I'd say I have no interest in ever seeing the series again because of that ending.

 

SAME. I have told my friends that haven’t seen GOT to never watch the show to spare them the bitter disappointment. I don’t even want to watch the prequel spin-off.

I do hope Emilia Clark gets another show, one where the showrunners can actually write decent storylines for female characters. Ditto for the rest of the cast, especially Peter Dinklage. I love him so, and they really screwed the pooch with his character. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Spartan Girl

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Making Rumple also the Beast was the worst choice that show ever, and that show made MANY terrible choices. They painted themselves into a corner because they wanted to keep Rumple Rumpling. They clearly had no intention of making him a good guy, so unlike Beauty and the Beast, Belle's love did nothing to change Rumple. So it ended up making Belle look like a total moron for being with him and constantly telling everyone he was a good man. He was not and had no desire to be good. 

Regina's story was very much the same, which is another fail. Having one horrific villain who won't change, not even for love, could be an interesting story, having two, and having neither of them really have to face up to this fact is just poor writing. 

Re: Graham. it almost feels like either the writers forgot he existed and that they'd ever written that storyline, or they seem to have very purposefully ignored the fact that they ever wrote that, which is odd, since, as people have pointed out, while Regina was written as a victim she was also written as constantly doing horrible things, so why erase this one particular thing? 

Given all the inconsistencies in that show it wouldn't surprise me to find out they did not have a show bible and therefore did forget about Graham's storyline. Of all the shows I've ever watched OUAT feels the most like they were just making it up week by week. 

I honestly have no idea what they were thinking. When asked about Graham they tried to claim they were just playing chess despite season one having a scene where Regina as Queen orders Graham taken to her bedchamber. Then in season two long after people pointing out the rape when they show the early days of Storybrooke they show us Regina controlling Graham with his heart like it was a walkie-talkie. The writers were really weird with Regina. They clearly wanted us to see Regina as the victim and yet kept showing us more and more horrifying crimes. The village massacre in season two, murdering a groom in season four, and another village massacre in season five. Why do that? It makes no sense.

[Haleth]

17 hours ago, TheGreenKnight said:

The Walking Dead. The first two seasons are sort of boilerplate, but the last episode of season 2 onwards to midway through season 5 are brilliant. As soon as the characters enter Alexandria, the show slowly went to crap. And then Negan ruined it altogether. I hung through just hoping the show might improve once they *finally* got rid of him, but then they ended that plot by /not/ killing him and putting him in a jail instead, WTF?? After that, I was pretty much at the edge of quitting and then Rick’s actor left the show. That’s when I was out. Daryl and Carol were great, Maggie was alright even without Glenn, but not enough to keep going with a story that was beyond running on fumes. Whenever I re-watch the series, I stop with the episode where they drive into Alexandria. I think that’s a good ending, since they’d just had the episode titled after the show title, “The Walking Dead,” and I can envision a HEA because of the dialogue at the end of the episode they enter Alexandria, with Michonne convincing Rick to give hope for real life a chance again.

I agree with every word.  I too stopped watching when Andrew Lincoln left, although I was wavering when they killed off Carl.  Hated all things Negan.  It would have been a good ending to the series with them entering Alexandria, Daryl holding up the dead possum and saying, "I brought dinner."  Cut to credits.  Perfect.

[Mabinogia]

15 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

When asked about Graham they tried to claim they were just playing chess despite season one having a scene where Regina as Queen orders Graham taken to her bedchamber.

What? I always order men up to my bedchamber for a nice, hard, throbbing game of chess. I thought everybody did that. 

Just speculation, but I think the showrunners for that show pretty much wrote it like a giant fanfic. Originally Rumpy and Regina were meant to be these terrible fairytale villains, but then the writers started to like the actors, like fans reaction to the characters, liked the characters even, and while they still had them to terrible things because the storyline needed villains, they also constantly pretended they didn't do these terrible things because they liked the characters. 

The trouble with a lot of villains is that writers will see that fans love the villain and mistakenly think that means we want them to have a heroes journey. Most of the time we love the villain because of their unapologetic, batshit crazy villainy. But the writers try to make fans happy by giving the villain a "better story" and end up ruining exactly what made the villain popular in the first place. 

I can understand having Regina believe she is the victim. I don't think that most people see themselves as the villain, we all think we are the heroes of our own stories. So having her believe she was wrong, having her motivation be revenge for that wrong all makes sense and it is something I enjoyed about her at the start. Everything she did she was doing as some unhinged act of revenge. Fine.

But the show went too far in making all the other characters start to believe her narrative, which actually also would have worked if it had been a spell she cast on them, like the Storybrooke spell, but it wasn't, it was the writers not understanding how to write a compelling villain without making them a sympathetic hero too. 

The idea of this woman feeling so victimized that she creates a world in which all the people who she thought were against her now loved her was really interesting, and having that spell get worn away and having the people she forced to love her start to realize it was all fake was brilliant and could have created a really amazing storyline, but they really screwed it up and for that I will never forgive them. 

I can deal with a terrible show that never had the potential to be good, but when you start with a show that had so much potential and the creators run it into the ground like they did, it breaks my tv loving heart. 

[JustHereForFood]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

The trouble with a lot of villains is that writers will see that fans love the villain and mistakenly think that means we want them to have a heroes journey. Most of the time we love the villain because of their unapologetic, batshit crazy villainy. But the writers try to make fans happy by giving the villain a "better story" and end up ruining exactly what made the villain popular in the first place. 

I can appreciate a villain being a great villainous character that we enjoy to watch do bad stuff. I can also appreciate a villain having a well-written redemption arc, preferably not tied to a lovestory where the love of a good woman cures the villain of his evilness - but that can also occasionally be written well.

What I realized after watching many shows that I can't appreciate, is having a character go from villain to hero to back to villain and repeat at least once per season. One change of heart is enough, two can show that you can't always change a person, but more than that is just redundant and usually written in a way that makes several other characters look like idiots, for thinking that the person can change again.

With Rumpelstiltskin, I think they peaked in season 3 when he sacrificed himself to stop Peter Pan. That could have been a good end of the story for him, but of course the writers never meant for him to die permanently, considering how popular he was. My opinion is that they should have either go through with it and keep him dead, or just never kill him in the first place, since starting to bring characters back from dead on a whim is also never a good thing. And season 3 was probably past the time to pick the direction for him - villain or reformed villain, for the rest of the show, both of these could work better than what we got later, IMO.

As for Regina, I would keep her as villain who maybe sometimes teams up with the good guys for her own selfish interests, but I wouldn't give her any redemption storyline at all.

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

I can appreciate a villain being a great villainous character that we enjoy to watch do bad stuff. I can also appreciate a villain having a well-written redemption arc, preferably not tied to a lovestory where the love of a good woman cures the villain of his evilness - but that can also occasionally be written well.

What I realized after watching many shows that I can't appreciate, is having a character go from villain to hero to back to villain and repeat at least once per season. One change of heart is enough, two can show that you can't always change a person, but more than that is just redundant and usually written in a way that makes several other characters look like idiots, for thinking that the person can change again.

With Rumpelstiltskin, I think they peaked in season 3 when he sacrificed himself to stop Peter Pan. That could have been a good end of the story for him, but of course the writers never meant for him to die permanently, considering how popular he was. My opinion is that they should have either go through with it and keep him dead, or just never kill him in the first place, since starting to bring characters back from dead on a whim is also never a good thing. And season 3 was probably past the time to pick the direction for him - villain or reformed villain, for the rest of the show, both of these could work better than what we got later, IMO.

I really wish they had ended that way too. It was the perfect redemption ending for Rumple. A man who put power before everything including his son. Finally sacrifices himself to kill Peter Pan before he can kill Rumple's love ones and destroy the town. It was a good ending. 

Quote

As for Regina, I would keep her as villain who maybe sometimes teams up with the good guys for her own selfish interests, but I wouldn't give her any redemption storyline at all.

I never liked Regina but I do wish they had kept her as a villain too. She was a really good villian that I loved to hate. It was also fun watching a show where people were up against the Evil Queen. I liked watching Regina and Emma going back and forth in season one and same with Snow White in the past with the Evil Queen. She was really evil and it was fun watching them go up against her and finally defeat her. Then move onto another villain like season two should have been Maleficent as the new evil. She reason to hate all the main characters. 

[andromeda331]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:36 PM, Mabinogia said:

I can deal with a terrible show that never had the potential to be good, but when you start with a show that had so much potential and the creators run it into the ground like they did, it breaks my tv loving heart. 

I think that's exactly why I can't let go some shows that went bad. Its no big deal when its a show that's terrible or if ONCE started out with Regina as the victim or Katrina from Sleepy Hollow as the hero or whatever she was. I probably never would have watched them or watched past the pilot. But I knew what I was getting. But it really stinks when a show has so much potential or a good thing going and the creators don't see it or ruin it. I fell in love with ONCE and Sleepy Hollow. I had so many characters that I loved, a few I loved to hate, and wanted to see what happen next. They both had so much potential and they threw it all away. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by andromeda331

[ABay]

I started watching OUAT because of the Lost connection, but stopped when it became All Disney All the Time. The addition of other texts that had nothing to do with fairy tales, like Frankenstein, also irked me greatly.

[andromeda331]

13 hours ago, ABay said:

I started watching OUAT because of the Lost connection, but stopped when it became All Disney All the Time. The addition of other texts that had nothing to do with fairy tales, like Frankenstein, also irked me greatly.

I'll never understand how they had all of fiction to chose from and they didn't. 

[Mabinogia]

19 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'll never understand how they had all of fiction to chose from and they didn't. 

I think they could have gone a long way if they'd mined some lesser known fairytales instead of sticking with the Disneyfied ones. There are so many fairytales out there that could be retold and they would have had a bit more freedom in the telling. Letting Rumple just be Rumplestiltskin would have been fine, making him also the Beast because I'm guessing Rumplestiltskin wasn't popular enough for them. 

[roamyn]

On 12/11/2021 at 6:24 PM, Spartan Girl said:

SAME. I have told my friends that haven’t seen GOT to never watch the show to spare them the bitter disappointment. I don’t even want to watch the prequel spin-off.

I do hope Emilia Clark gets another show, one where the showrunners can actually write decent storylines for female characters. Ditto for the rest of the cast, especially Peter Dinklage. I love him so, and they really screwed the pooch with his character. 

While I completely agree with your second paragraph, I don’t see how S8 was that much of a disappointment, other than the rush job.  And making the Night King seem so weak at the end.  Oh and Bran.  And Missendei’s death.

Danyerus was ALWAYS willing to kill, no matter the consequences.  It’s just she did good, while also doing bad.  She didn’t need to burn both the father & son who turned against the Tyrrell’s.  She willing crucified over 300 nobles without trial, and later found out that some were not evil.  

I do wish TPTB had taken their time and expanded S8 longer, however.  She had an edge of madness to her that was brought into the fire at the death of her Khal.

[Hiyo]

I never saw her as mad until the final half of the final season where the show started telling us she was mad. Before that, she was at times arrogant and misguided, but I never bought the bullshit narrative of her being mad.

Edited December 19, 2021 by Hiyo