Shonda Rhimes: How To Frustrate Most of The Internet

[David T. Cole]

Your Shonda topic!

[omgsowicked]

I see people referring to this as a Shonda show, and being concerned that this will go the way of her other shows (i.e. messy), but she's only producing, she's not the creator or a writer, right? So... how worried should we actually be? How much of a Shonda touch should we expect? I'm not familiar with her outside of Grey's so I really don't know.

[Skyline]

I see people referring to this as a Shonda show, and being concerned that this will go the way of her other shows (i.e. messy), but she's only producing, she's not the creator or a writer, right? So... how worried should we actually be? How much of a Shonda touch should we expect? I'm not familiar with her outside of Grey's so I really don't know.

We're in luck if she's only producing. She really knows how to run a show into the ground.

[DramaQueen]

I wrote in a previous thread that she tends to write soapy, dramedy or drama and her shows are referred to as night-time soaps, however she hates this and believes her shows are as great as Person of Interest or The Good Wife (which I have not watched, but have heard great things about) She got really upset when fans referred to Scandal and Grey's Anatomy as their guilty pleasure. She equates that as someone saying her show is a load of crap, and believes these people should not watch if they think that. I get the feeling she does not like people saying that because it implies that her shows are night time soaps and not quality night time drama which is what she believes they are. She has writers on Grey's and has not written an episode of Grey's for two seasons now and a lot of the writing still sucks in my opinion, however, her writers recently closed off a main character's story really well when Sandra Oh left, so perhaps there is hope. I also have noticed that the quality of writing diminishes the longer her shows go on. Scandal was really good for most of Season one and two and I would not have called it a soap, however season three is another issue altogether. The writing was not as good. Grey's was the same, I found Season 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (without Dead Denny) to be excellent and then for some reason the writing went downhill. Shonda Rhimes is talented and it shows with most of the Grey's Anatomy episodes she has written. I really feel that it depends just how much creative control she has over the show and it may come down to how much the network interfere with the creative process. I am not sure how this sort of thing works, but in season 8 of Grey's Anatomy contract negotiations dictated story arcs and to me as a long time viewer, this was unacceptable and totally not Shonda's fault. When Private Practice ended, Shonda also did a great job of writing the final season and the final episode. There were not disasters, everyone survived the series finale, which I was relieved about. I guess we will just have to wait and see what this show is like. I am looking forward to having yet another show to watch and there's one thing I cannot deny, Shonda Rhimes knows how to keep you interested. It is always a matter of taste for everyone and what kind of telly you are looking to watch. I tend to watch TV to relax and escape from reality and Shonda's shows, particuarly Grey's Anatomy are really good shows to watch when you are winding down. I will definitely be giving this one a go.

[FozzyBear]

I think SR comes up with some good premises for shows and generally has a decent 1st season. She's good at all the "getting the audience to know these people and this world" thing. After that she has a tendency to drive shows into the ground. I think part of it is that she has an affinity for writing really unlikeable people. That would be fine except that she doesn't seem to know they're unlikeable and keeps expecting the audience to root for them. Take Scandal, Olivia and Fitz are basically the two worst people ever. Whiny, stupid, self absorbed, cheesy. Yet SR seems to think they're the shit and keeps writing them like no one has noticed that they're two overgrown teenagers playing grown up. If there was a more nuanced approach to their general fucking up life-ness (like The Sopranos) or a more knowing, comic take on how dumb they are (like Moonlighting) it might work better. I feel like the same thing happened with Meredith and Derrick on GA. They're really two of the dumbest people to ever graduate medical school and SR never seemed to catch onto that.

So in any case, I'm hopefully about this show since SR is producing. The concept is cool and if she's not that involved she might let the writers stick to more of a case of the week format without asking us to care much about the love life of emotionally stunted people.

On another note. Anybody want to speculate on who the rich, important married man was that SR had an affair with? Come on, you know she's talking about herself.

[Beebee111]

 

Take Scandal, Olivia and Fitz are basically the two worst people ever. Whiny, stupid, self absorbed, cheesy. Yet SR seems to think they're the shit and keeps writing them like no one has noticed that they're two overgrown teenagers playing grown up.

I don't so much have a problem with the characters being unlikeable. I think if a character elicits a strong reaction from a viewer - be it positive or negative - that's a success in a way. I am fine watching a show, whilst disliking the lead characters as long as they don't always "win" and they get their comeuppance in some ways.

 

For me, the problem with the writing on Scandal quickly became the fact that Shonda wanted to throw 100 twists an episode which really took away from proper development of the characters. The show can be exciting without having all these twists that begin to make characters and the plot look less and less credible. The other problem, IMO, is overly drawn out monologues. When used sparingly in an episode they were really powerful e.g., I remember rewinding some Cyrus scenes just to listen to him deliver some of his monologues - just beautiful. However, the drawn out 'speeches' started to consume some of the episodes. That coupled with Kerry Washington constantly yelling her lines really turned me off. If Kerry could learn to be assertive without the constant raised tone, I might actually tune in this season.

 

That being said, I love Viola Davis as an actor and I am really looking forward to this show. Don't ruin it Shona.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Beebee111

[C0mputerGeek]

I've never watched The Good Wife, but I find the premise of Person of Interest  to be utterly laughable. Let's be clear, the FBI and CIA are not that incompetent. I watched two seasons of Person of Interest before bowing out. IMHO, it was about as believable as Scandal.

 

I agree that Scandal was good the first two seasons, but the twists became outrageous and I got tired of the will-they won't-they relationship between Olivia and Fitz. I hope HTGAWM does not go the same way.

[ribboninthesky1]

I never watched Grey's Anatomy, but Scandal was run into the ground somewhat quickly for me - once Verna was revealed as the presidential assassination conspirator, my interest started to deteriorate.  I kept watching through about halfway into season 3, and I just stopped caring.  If Viola Davis wasn't the lead on this show, I wouldn't be remotely interested. And I'm not entirely convinced she is truly the lead, based on the previews I've seen.  I realize that Shonda is producing, not writing, but I believe this show creator was a protege.  So I remain skeptical.  At least Viola's character is married, so less likelihood of the show being hijacked by the "scorned and victimized wife" BS that overtook S3 Scandal.  Though I'm sure Viola will be judged accordingly for her adultery, by show and viewers alike. I'm also not that interested in the students, and I suspect their drama might overtake the show.  We'll see. 

 

The one thing I give credit to Shonda is the casting, and particularly, casting black women as leads in dramas. 

[wanderingstar]

The one thing I give credit to Shonda is the casting, and particularly, casting black women as leads in dramas.

 

 

I'm a fan of most of Shondaland's casting - for leads, regulars and guest stars. I mean, just in first few eps of HTGAWM, I've seen Elisabeth Perkins and Jason Gedrick, both of whom I've always enjoyed.

[Azaelia]

Didn't Grey's Anatomy have a character date a ghost? (I know more details than that, just trying not to spoil, though I haven't actually seen more than one Grey's episode.) I mean... how is that not soapy? It's not necessarily a bad thing, I just don't see how Shonda can deny that.

[jhlipton]

Whatever you think of Shonda, I think she's the first woman and definitely the first black, to have 3 shows on at the same time (and all three very successful at that).  Grey's Anatomy gave her the clout to do Scandal, which gave her the clout to do HTGAWM.  Viola may have some, or even a lot of say, in how Annalise is portrayed, but there wouldn't be an Annalise without Shonda.

 

There was a comment that previous black actresses wouldn't have been able to handle a show or character like this.  This I find frankly insulting to all the previous black actresses -- those that were given any kind of chance (like Ms Tyson herself) did just fine.  No other producer, no other show-runner, gave them the opportunity to show what they could do. 

[ribboninthesky1]

Agreed.  I can parse Shonda the writer vs Shonda the showrunner/executive producer.  There's plenty to discuss and debate about Shonda's writing or other creative decisions.  But I'll never understand the "Viola is awesome/Shonda is not" dichotomy.  There is no inverse correlation between the two, for me at least. Shonda's impact on black female actors in the modern age is undeniable.  

 

In some other online discussions, there's commonly been the sentiment that some black producers/writers get their foot in the door and don't use their influence to create opportunities for others.  Yet, Shonda has done that.  But to be frank, she's done that primarily for black women, not black people, and I suspect that's part of the problem.  There's that intersectionality rearing its head again, haha!

[jhlipton]

Shonda has done that.  But to be frank, she's done that primarily for black women, not black people, and I suspect that's part of the problem.  

 

Billy Brown might disagree with you there, as might Alfred Enoch.  It's not Empire, but it's a good mix of people.

[ribboninthesky1]

Allow to me clarify - I was referring to lead roles, not casting in general.  Shonda has always cast black men on her TV shows, going back to Isaiah Washington on Grey's Anatomy.  But in terms of black women as leads on network drama, I believe that hadn't happened in 40 years or so before Scandal came along.  

[Eolivet]

After watching the finale, I'd be shocked if Shonda has much to do with this other than helping to put it on the air and perhaps acting as a sounding board for Peter Nowalk, the creator. It lacked Shonda's optimistic realism -- it's far too dark to be a Shonda show. People commit terrible acts on Scandal, but you know that they absolutely believe they are doing something for the greater good (see: the whole Defiance arc). The premise of Scandal is people do absolutely awful things to protect the public from even more awful things. Grey's Anatomy is similar -- people are portrayed as being morally in the right when something is done for a noble purpose (Meredith fixing the clinical trial so Adele could get the drug or even Izzie and the LVAD wire). There's an idealism that I've always found very appealing.

 

I get none of that from this show. Everyone's motives are purely selfish and there is no greater good. Contrast the affairs on this show compared to the affairs in Grey's or Scandal. Fitz was in (at the beginning) a passionless marriage. Derek's wife had cheated on him. Not exactly Nate's wife the cancer patient and Sam boning his virginal student. Nowalk's world is much harsher and far less forgiving than Shondaland.

 

To say nothing of the deaths. Yes, Shonda kills a bunch of characters, but there's pathos and drama to it. This show is filled with senseless death and...cosmic injustice (Oliver, for example). I feel like in Shonda's world, people go through sadness together, whereas here, all suffering is private. Nothing is shared -- emotion is weakness. You look out for #1 above all else, and nothing else really matters.

 

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with this from a dramatic perspective -- I just find it so contrary to Shonda's other shows and what seems to be her philosophy of writing that it's interesting to know she's producing this. The end title card may say "Shondaland" (I think) but Nowalk Entertainment is clearly an entirely different country.

[jhlipton]

The end title card may say "Shondaland" (I think) but Nowalk Entertainment is clearly an entirely different country.

 

That puts a finger on why I don't feel like coming back next season.  I can live with doom and gloom to a certain extent, but there needs to be a point to it.  Here everyone is suffering and for not very good reasons.  The Murder 4 (less Wes) could easily have said that they heard a noise and came in just after Wes killed Sam (works for police, right?).  It's 3 to 2, with one being the suspect's girlfriend (who has Sam's fingerprints on her throat).

 

The only one I like is Asher, and he's probably going to get dragged under early next season.