 | | 06-24-2009, 05:35 AM |
|
#19 |
| Dedicated Fan
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 641
| Quote: |
Gwen, this is very well said. And I know we've had quite the discussions (with Red as well) in the past of this "bad boy" phenomenon and I was so resistant to it.... and I still feel like putting them into the "good guy" box or "bad guy" box can understate or limit their character depth (even George's), but you have convinced me that this phenomenon is alive and thriving in the industry right now... and controlling the artistic direction chosen by these shows and their writers/producers.
| As far as the labels are concerned I forgot to factor in an element that covers your dissent. The archetypes are reinforced and simplified through the process of commercialism. I realized this when talking to Red about the Tony Soprano/Vic Mackey/Jack Bauer/Al Swearingen model of extreme protagonists that these men were never intended to be role models. On closer examination these men lead lonely, troubled lives and the consequences of their brutal actions are shown. It's this very complexity that attracts most viewers not so much the violence. In fact, these men are balanced both by gentler and more fanatical characters.
However, first the critics glorify these men by glossing over the nuances of their lives. They declare them "cool" and isolate moments out of context. True art reviews have died being replaced by attempts to discover why a show is succesful. When critics decide then the executives try to replicate this formula in everything. Then comes the marketing, which seeks to minimize complexities to sell a product. Of course, the male characters are more than their categories but magazines tell us Derek is the prince, Alex is the brooding hunk, Mark is the womanizer, and George is a girl's cuddly but asexual best friend.
Quote: |
And you know what? I think they are all just shooting themselves in the foot. As you have pointed out, in the past... it appeals to a younger demographic group... that's who they are aiming to please and they are completely missing the boat with everyone else. So, they think it sells. But they forget it does not sell to everyone. If they continue to charge headfirst down this path, they are going to lose, IMO.
| In some ways that's why it sells to the younger demographic whose lack of experience and desire to break from authority look at the world through simple models. Not only, as you said, is it alienating for us who are older and want more variety but it misses a chance to teach. If GA was pure brain candy it wouldn't be so objectionable but Shonda's aim had been to exhibit an egalitarian world. Having George be a sexual being went against the grain. With the show now succumbing to stereotypes and certain traits overwhelming others it's lost much of its specialness.
You're right it's foolish to pursue only the young to the exclusion of others. For one thing advertisers crave for the older teen crowd to the young adults between 18-25. That's a narrow range and one who are notoriously fickle with short attention span. In this economic climate does it make sense to cater to a group who's disposable income need to be supplemented by their parents. As an older person I have a decent job and more funds.
Quote: |
But I'm curious, what is that in T.R's hand in the first picture?
| It's a cigarette. He used to be a smoker. There's something inherently stressful about network TV filming that many actors puff the nicotine between takes. The National Enquirer caught a pic of Luke visiting TR on the set and, sure enough, there's a cigarette peeking from his fingers.
Marie, thanks for the new thread. The title is great and thanks for linking that article. My only quibble is her obvious anti-Gizzie analysis in the "What a Difference a Day Makes" but I agree what a wonderfully positive tone. I agree there should be 20 best moments. I'm glad someone realized his sacrifice.
Here's a pic spam:
Not only do I love how blue shirt accentuates his eyes but also how he looks gorgeous in disarray. His hair is out of place and a bit of stubble can be seen but somehow he's just perfect in his imperfections.
Here he's smiling. That's enough. I've always noticed that slightly crooked right canine of his and thought that was absolutely adorable. |
| |