Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 6:40:09 GMT
What tropes in fiction do you hate?
For me, it's the abusive/toxic parent/sibling who returns and the protraganist has to forgive them because their famillly. (Hear the echo) Now yes, forgiviness and closure is a subjective thing, but I hate that it's imparted as a gospel truth in so many forms of fiction. Some scars never completely heal and are best left alone and it's nearly always portrayed as a black and white issue when it's anything but.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 15, 2017 6:59:59 GMT
Will they or won't they, in dragged out flavour. Exhibit A, Ross and Rachel from Friends. The writers kept getting them together and breaking them up until you didn't care what happened, as long as they didn't end up together. They were toxic for each other, and each had other love interests who were more compatible, yet broke up with them because the writers decided it.
A sub trope is the designated love interest. Ideally shows should wait until the cast have interacted, so the writers can see who has chemistry and will convey a more convincing relationship. The CW Arrowverse shows are bad for this, with the main characters showing more chemistry with characters they weren't paired off with straight away. Oliver and Laurel, Barry and Iris, Kara and Jimmy for example. Oliver and Felicity shone when she wasn't a Creators Pet, and Barry was great with Patty before she was written out. This dates back to Smallville, where Clark and Lois are a delight compared to Clark and Lana (Lana full stop). Tom Welling and Erica Durance shine, even if you didn't know Superman you knew they end up together. In a way this even stretched back to the original Dark Shadows, where Jonathan Frid and Kathryn Leigh Scott hardly had any spark as a romantic couple despite Barnabas and Josette being the love story of the century. Barnabas and Julia are forever though. Nancy Barrett and John Karlen's Carolyn and Will Loomis were fantastic in the otherwise boring 1970 Parallel Time storyline, and it shouldn't be a surprise they'd be cast as other couples in the remaining storylines of the show.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Aug 15, 2017 11:00:41 GMT
For me, it's the abusive/toxic parent/sibling who returns and the protraganist has to forgive them because their famillly. (Hear the echo) Now yes, forgiviness and closure is a subjective thing, but I hate that it's imparted as a gospel truth in so many forms of fiction. Some scars never completely heal and are best left alone and it's nearly always portrayed as a black and white issue when it's anything but. The thing about this particular trope is that it is unavoidable, in so much as if you have the protagonists not return, but instead ignore the issue and those involved there is no story, equally if they don't "need" to forgive but can get along anyway there is no story, whatever way I look at this trope, it exists in fiction because the alternatives lead to nothing to say. It's an example of the anthropic principle as applied to fiction writing, i.e. the trope has to exist the way it is because it can't be any other way and still be part of a story.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Aug 15, 2017 11:19:19 GMT
I'm sorry, maybe my brain isn't making the connection because it's early here - "because their family"...does what? :confused:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 13:42:56 GMT
For me, it's the abusive/toxic parent/sibling who returns and the protraganist has to forgive them because their famillly. (Hear the echo) Now yes, forgiviness and closure is a subjective thing, but I hate that it's imparted as a gospel truth in so many forms of fiction. Some scars never completely heal and are best left alone and it's nearly always portrayed as a black and white issue when it's anything but. The thing about this particular trope is that it is unavoidable, in so much as if you have the protagonists not return, but instead ignore the issue and those involved there is no story, equally if they don't "need" to forgive but can get along anyway there is no story, whatever way I look at this trope, it exists in fiction because the alternatives lead to nothing to say. It's an example of the anthropic principle as applied to fiction writing, i.e. the trope has to exist the way it is because it can't be any other way and still be part of a story. On the same subject, Babylon 5's "Passing Through Gethsemane" is a beautiful meditation on forgiveness and all it entails. It asks some really powerful questions about whether someone is truly irredeemable and the biases enforced and rejected by those around the condemned. Putting any particularly personal issue out such as compassion as a one-sided phenomenon (aside from murder which is always terrible, irrespective of the context) where people believe there is an objective truth on the matter reminds me of a line from Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence: A character with self-doubt, even in the most honest and respectable of motives, is far more relatable than someone who has unswerving and unquestioning belief tends to be a bit more troubling. That leads to almost frenzied dogma and a rather frightening form of fanaticism. A two-minute hate by any other name with a stench of rot. It was explored very well with protagonist Roj Blake and his unblinkered desire to annihilate the Federation by destroying Star One, irrespective of the human cost, as pointed out by Avon of all people. I consider character-based resurrection without consequence to be anathema to me outside of something like comedy. The permanence of death and loss is a very real thing which people have to task themselves over day-by-day. I don't think it's particularly fair to snap your fingers and suddenly they're alive again as if it means nothing. There is always a human cost when something leaves and learning how to cope with the grief not only makes your characters more human, but also educates your audience how to as well. To remember them as they were. To marvel at what they achieved while they were here. To mourn the death, but also celebrate the life. To accept and to carry on if not happily, then at least contented in their memory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 0:39:27 GMT
Will they or won't they, in dragged out flavour. Exhibit A, Ross and Rachel from Friends. The writers kept getting them together and breaking them up until you didn't care what happened, as long as they didn't end up together. They were toxic for each other, and each had other love interests who were more compatible, yet broke up with them because the writers decided it. A sub trope is the designated love interest. Ideally shows should wait until the cast have interacted, so the writers can see who has chemistry and will convey a more convincing relationship. The CW Arrowverse shows are bad for this, with the main characters showing more chemistry with characters they weren't paired off with straight away. Oliver and Laurel, Barry and Iris, Kara and Jimmy for example. Oliver and Felicity shone when she wasn't a Creators Pet, and Barry was great with Patty before she was written out. This dates back to Smallville, where Clark and Lois are a delight compared to Clark and Lana (Lana full stop). Tom Welling and Erica Durance shine, even if you didn't know Superman you knew they end up together. In a way this even stretched back to the original Dark Shadows, where Jonathan Frid and Kathryn Leigh Scott hardly had any spark as a romantic couple despite Barnabas and Josette being the love story of the century. Barnabas and Julia are forever though. Nancy Barrett and John Karlen's Carolyn and Will Loomis were fantastic in the otherwise boring 1970 Parallel Time storyline, and it shouldn't be a surprise they'd be cast as other couples in the remaining storylines of the show. As part of the pitch, networks need to know where a story is heading and a love story is often a core element in fiction - particularly, I'd imagine if your pitching to the CW! (And that's not a slight on The CW) Also, most shows after casting the lead, often have the lead interact with the love intrest for chemistry, although not always. (Given the conditions The CW shows are made under, it's possible they don't have time for that step)
Eh, I've only seen the first season, but I actually put down lack of chemistry more due to the writers, then the actors. Barry was incredibly clingy and at times incredibly unlikable despite Gustin's best efforts to sand off his edges (not being able to be happy for Iris) and there wasn't a lot to Iris - that's hard work for even the best of actors, it's hard to let the chemistry shine through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 0:44:40 GMT
Another is the guy or girl who waits for their love intrest (often already taken) to notice them. Okay, as a love sick teenager or early twentysomething, I get it. But, if the character is older or when a piece of fiction either decides to 'reward' them for it or - well, it's where I draw the line. That person is not into you. It's up to you to either decide you can be that person's friend or exit out of their life. And that's hard, but it's the mature responsible thing to do for both you and that person. When the onus of the narrative is put on the person who isn't into the, it's incredibly jerky and annoying, despite it being played off as romance.. No-one is owed another person. People need to take responsibility for themselves and it's so annoying to see this often play out in fiction otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 0:49:51 GMT
For me, it's the abusive/toxic parent/sibling who returns and the protraganist has to forgive them because their famillly. (Hear the echo) Now yes, forgiviness and closure is a subjective thing, but I hate that it's imparted as a gospel truth in so many forms of fiction. Some scars never completely heal and are best left alone and it's nearly always portrayed as a black and white issue when it's anything but. The thing about this particular trope is that it is unavoidable, in so much as if you have the protagonists not return, but instead ignore the issue and those involved there is no story, equally if they don't "need" to forgive but can get along anyway there is no story, whatever way I look at this trope, it exists in fiction because the alternatives lead to nothing to say. It's an example of the anthropic principle as applied to fiction writing, i.e. the trope has to exist the way it is because it can't be any other way and still be part of a story.
Eh, I'd argue agasint that. And the abuser/toxic person, say in serialised fiction, doesn't have to be a protraganist, just part of the narrative. With an adult protraganist, how much their family is involved in the ongoing narrative can vary. You can tell an equally investing story of someone who decides they can't forgive someone for the sake of their own well-being. It's certiantly something, in my opinion, that isn't said quite enough!
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Aug 16, 2017 0:57:59 GMT
You can tell an equally investing story of someone who decides they can't forgive someone for the sake of their own well-being. We clearly have quite different views here I'm struggling to think of any circumstance where forgiving someone would harm your well being, in fact quite the opposite. I'm not saying you need to forgive everyone, and there are many times when you can just move on in whatever manner, but if the issue of forgiveness has reached the level where it in of itself it can or is harming your well being, then I can't think of anything more important than forgiveness, it would indeed appear to be at that stage a need. The only other way I think you might be looking at this, is that in forgiving you someone expose yourself to more danger? But that's not what forgiveness is about, I'm struggling to see how it would increase or decrease any danger levels.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 16, 2017 1:10:47 GMT
Another is the guy or girl who waits for their love intrest (often already taken) to notice them. Okay, as a love sick teenager or early twentysomething, I get it. But, if the character is older or when a piece of fiction either decides to 'reward' them for it or - well, it's where I draw the line. That person is not into you. It's up to you to either decide you can be that person's friend or exit out of their life. And that's hard, but it's the mature responsible thing to do for both you and that person. When the onus of the narrative is put on the person who isn't into the, it's incredibly jerky and annoying, despite it being played off as romance.. No-one is owed another person. People need to take responsibility for themselves and it's so annoying to see this often play out in fiction otherwise. And when their crush finally gets the hint, the one crushing on them is with someone else. If it's in a high school setting, the crush is usually with the captain of the football team or the cheerleader squad. Cue them starting off as a jerk, but becoming a nicer person as the show goes on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 1:14:25 GMT
Another is the guy or girl who waits for their love intrest (often already taken) to notice them. Okay, as a love sick teenager or early twentysomething, I get it. But, if the character is older or when a piece of fiction either decides to 'reward' them for it or - well, it's where I draw the line. That person is not into you. It's up to you to either decide you can be that person's friend or exit out of their life. And that's hard, but it's the mature responsible thing to do for both you and that person. When the onus of the narrative is put on the person who isn't into the, it's incredibly jerky and annoying, despite it being played off as romance.. No-one is owed another person. People need to take responsibility for themselves and it's so annoying to see this often play out in fiction otherwise. And when their crush finally gets the hint, the one crushing on them is with someone else. If it's in a high school setting, the crush is usually with the captain of the football team or the cheerleader squad. Cue them starting off as a jerk, but becoming a nicer person as the show goes on. And once they are together, never following through on the ups and downs of the actual relationship. That always struck me as way more interesting territory to explore.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 16, 2017 1:21:59 GMT
And when their crush finally gets the hint, the one crushing on them is with someone else. If it's in a high school setting, the crush is usually with the captain of the football team or the cheerleader squad. Cue them starting off as a jerk, but becoming a nicer person as the show goes on. And once they are together, never following through on the ups and downs of the actual relationship. That always struck me as way more interesting territory to explore. Usually contriving to break them up or at least ruffle the relationship when it's at a good place. Enter a character who is seen as a romantic rival (be it through through genuinely innocent moments with conclusion jumping or a deliberate seductress). This isn't always a bad thing, when the conflict arises organically, but sometimes it's shoehorned in for the sake of conflict.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 16, 2017 1:24:04 GMT
Lack of communication, when sometimes all it takes to defuse a situation is sitting down, having a chat and straightening things out. At the very least being open about problems means a healthier group dynamic. Season 4 of Buffy is a prime example.
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on Aug 16, 2017 2:11:11 GMT
Off the top of my head, I don't think I much like things to the effect of
1. An actor is leaving the series so let's kill their character. (Why bother? No one can get rid of a character forever when there is Big Finish).
2. Living forever might be awful, and aspiring to a healthy lifespan probably is too. (This runs seemingly contrary to many noble aspirations in the field of medicine).
3. Earthlings are incorrigibly slow on the uptake. (Seriously? After all the alien invasions we've outsmarted?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 2:44:56 GMT
Lack of communication, when sometimes all it takes to defuse a situation is sitting down, having a chat and straightening things out. At the very least being open about problems means a healthier group dynamic. Season 4 of Buffy is a prime example.
I can live with that, actually. There needs to be some outlet for drama
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 2:46:45 GMT
Another is the guy or girl who waits for their love intrest (often already taken) to notice them. Okay, as a love sick teenager or early twentysomething, I get it. But, if the character is older or when a piece of fiction either decides to 'reward' them for it or - well, it's where I draw the line. That person is not into you. It's up to you to either decide you can be that person's friend or exit out of their life. And that's hard, but it's the mature responsible thing to do for both you and that person. When the onus of the narrative is put on the person who isn't into the, it's incredibly jerky and annoying, despite it being played off as romance.. No-one is owed another person. People need to take responsibility for themselves and it's so annoying to see this often play out in fiction otherwise. And when their crush finally gets the hint, the one crushing on them is with someone else.
Because you can never move on. Because you have to wait long enough for your unrequited love to be requited
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 16, 2017 7:50:27 GMT
Lack of communication, when sometimes all it takes to defuse a situation is sitting down, having a chat and straightening things out. At the very least being open about problems means a healthier group dynamic. Season 4 of Buffy is a prime example.
I can live with that, actually. There needs to be some outlet for drama
But when it's an overplayed trope or done for the angst, like Supernatural, then it gets tired. Winchesters excel at three things; killing monsters, unhealthily keeping secrets and carrying massive amounts of guilt. The last two make for a toxic and co-dependent relationship between the brothers. Arrow is another show where it's for the sake of drama instead of taking the characters through a journey where they grow as characters (such as happens with Barry and Cisco in season 3 of Flash and the Invasion! crossover).
|
|
|
Post by omega on Aug 17, 2017 9:37:12 GMT
Will they or won't they, in dragged out flavour. Exhibit A, Ross and Rachel from Friends. The writers kept getting them together and breaking them up until you didn't care what happened, as long as they didn't end up together. They were toxic for each other, and each had other love interests who were more compatible, yet broke up with them because the writers decided it. A sub trope is the designated love interest. Ideally shows should wait until the cast have interacted, so the writers can see who has chemistry and will convey a more convincing relationship. The CW Arrowverse shows are bad for this, with the main characters showing more chemistry with characters they weren't paired off with straight away. Oliver and Laurel, Barry and Iris, Kara and Jimmy for example. Oliver and Felicity shone when she wasn't a Creators Pet, and Barry was great with Patty before she was written out. This dates back to Smallville, where Clark and Lois are a delight compared to Clark and Lana (Lana full stop). Tom Welling and Erica Durance shine, even if you didn't know Superman you knew they end up together. In a way this even stretched back to the original Dark Shadows, where Jonathan Frid and Kathryn Leigh Scott hardly had any spark as a romantic couple despite Barnabas and Josette being the love story of the century. Barnabas and Julia are forever though. Nancy Barrett and John Karlen's Carolyn and Will Loomis were fantastic in the otherwise boring 1970 Parallel Time storyline, and it shouldn't be a surprise they'd be cast as other couples in the remaining storylines of the show. As part of the pitch, networks need to know where a story is heading and a love story is often a core element in fiction - particularly, I'd imagine if your pitching to the CW! (And that's not a slight on The CW) Also, most shows after casting the lead, often have the lead interact with the love intrest for chemistry, although not always. (Given the conditions The CW shows are made under, it's possible they don't have time for that step)
Eh, I've only seen the first season, but I actually put down lack of chemistry more due to the writers, then the actors. Barry was incredibly clingy and at times incredibly unlikable despite Gustin's best efforts to sand off his edges (not being able to be happy for Iris) and there wasn't a lot to Iris - that's hard work for even the best of actors, it's hard to let the chemistry shine through.
Fine, I accept that it's inevitable in the pitch, but less forgivable when the writers continue to pair up and break up characters when there's no spark or they just aren't right for each other. In Smallville Clark and Lana got together at the end of season 2 and broke up when Red K Clark went to Metropolis. Lana was hesitant to go back with Clark because of his actions, or at least how much of them she saw. Yet the writers kept pushing them together until they physically couldn't be together (she'd absorbed enough Kryptonite that Clark couldn't be near her for long without getting Kryptonite poisoning), which was season 8. Back to Friends with Ross and Rachel, two people who weren't good for each other. They had other love interests who were better suited, like Charlie for Ross. They were a good couple until her final episode where she was written unsympathetically so he could go back to Rachel. In the finale we're supposed to cheer that they finally get together, but the fact we don't get to see them finally stop being stupid means it's a hollow reunion. The writers could do great relationships, like Monica and Chandler, who proved the most stable and longest lasting couple on the show. With Flash, the biggest problem with Barry is that he a) carries a massive guilt complex and b) doesn't learn and thus doesn't develop as a character. As you say, it's a problem with the writers, and hopefully one that will be fixed in season 4. The signs are hopeful, as it isn't a speedster villain this time for the season big bad. I get that Barry's primary motivation in the first season was getting justice for his parents, but characters can't stand still. Ironically for the fastest man alive (thank you for telling me every fiddlesticksing time premise explaining intro for goldfish people) Barry hasn't moved on as much as he should have after three seasons. Writers need to adapt to how the viewers like or don't like the show. Popular characters get more involvement (Felicity in Arrow, Ben and Chris in Parks and Recreation), while the rougher edges on less popular character are smoothed out. Obviously it's important to listen to the right people. The shippers aren't this, as Arrow season 4 proves.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Aug 18, 2017 10:13:55 GMT
One that always annoyed me was the whole "hide your heroics" bit where the hero had to hide their daring-do from their family/friends in order to protect them, it's something the Arrowverse both embraces and subverts - Joe knew Barry was the Flash since early on in series 1 (trained copper recognises own son even under a costume ... shocker ) and the show benefitted from it, it meant that Joe could still be a father figure to Baz and advise him on his life, AND played straight with them both keeping Iris out of the loop in series 1. Joe and Barry are more of the emotional heart of the show than Barry and Iris or Joe and Iris (MY GOD is Jesse Williams a brilliant actor whenever he plays those scenes with Grant Gustin. Gustin lifts his game too in those scenes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 4:31:35 GMT
|
|