|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 9, 2017 19:44:15 GMT -5
Can't stand the Winchester matriarch? Think she just needs to die again? Post all about it here.
|
|
loops
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by loops on Mar 9, 2017 20:40:07 GMT -5
How does moving everything anti-Mary to its own thread promote discussion? No-one wants to be bashing Mary, but we have every right to continually comment on the direction the writers give her within the context of each episode discussion, no?
|
|
|
Post by SkeksisGirl on Mar 9, 2017 20:53:49 GMT -5
Here's the thing.
Yes, we KNOW that Mary is not being written well. But then, claiming that she's the worst person EVER because she is not cooking for them, or spending time with them while saying she should be more like Bobby and John makes me wonder.
Mary is nowhere NEAR as bad as John who used his kids as bait and left them for days on end alone as children. Or Bobby who blamed Dean for being pissed that Sam neared killed him.
She's not perfect, obviously, and the writing for her stinks. But the bitching about Mary is drowning out OTHER discussions and I am finding that it and "Snotty Claire" as go to descriptions of the characters are pretty damn insulting.
This is also something that annoyed me with the Elimination game, the first two eliminated were Charlie and Becky followed by Anna after Sam. Once I nixed the game more women were eliminated than men.
Focus on the writing if you want to discuss the failings of the character. But I am getting tired of people comparing Mary to being worse than John and Bobby. They were not paragons of parenting.
Also, Clueless, chill the fudge out. I am getting tired of your boundary pushing.
|
|
loops
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by loops on Mar 9, 2017 21:04:16 GMT -5
Ah, I see. I tend not to read or engage in those posts. They come from the same person/people and I don't give them any credence, just scroll on by. Fishpan being accused of baiting the mod is what made me wtf and then this thread was created directly after that. That gave the impression that no further discussion would be entertained on the subject of Mary. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by SkeksisGirl on Mar 9, 2017 21:19:37 GMT -5
Right now, the only one I see really baiting the mod here is Clueless.
Obviously Mary is going to be discussed in episodes that she appears in. Just like Charlie, Becky, Crowley, Lucifer, etc are going to be discussed in episodes they appear in.
But hell, this is getting as bad as all the "Why do people hate Charlie", "Jensen is a horrible person", and "We need to balance the board because there is too much Sam bashing" threads on the IMDB.
Threads like that are circle jerks. I don't want regular threads to turn into them.
I don't want every mention of Mary to turn into "She's a horrible person" cause guess what, she really isn't.
Canonically, and statistically, she's nowhere near as bad as Bobby and John have been. ESPECIALLY John, is she hurting Dean? Yes, (I blame the writers), but Dean is also a 37 year old man. What John did to Dean, started at the age of 4. Way worse.
You have issues with Mary, awesome, bring them here, because it's really a dead horse discussion.
Same with anger towards Sam, or Dean, or whoever.
Discussions that become circle jerks, go here.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 9, 2017 22:03:31 GMT -5
Ah, I see. I tend not to read or engage in those posts. They come from the same person/people and I don't give them any credence, just scroll on by. Fishpan being accused of baiting the mod is what made me wtf and then this thread was created directly after that. That gave the impression that no further discussion would be entertained on the subject of Mary. My bad. Mods don't get that privilege. I have to read all the posts on the boards I mod because that's my *job*. And I don't get paid for it. Also, I don't appreciate it if someone sneaks in stuff where I've already said, "Hey, don't do that" while I'm recapping and episode and busy. Not cool. The thing is, I appreciate that people want to have certain fractious discussions ad nauseam long after most other posters' eyes glaze over, but I've seen the chilling effect that had on other discussion on the IMDB boards and I'm already seeing certain topics start to drown out other discussion on the "Official" threads. People are complaining about "echo chambers" here, but that's what the Official threads were beginning to turn into. In case anybody noticed, plenty of negative stuff has been said about Claire on the Spoilers board, but I let that go because there was also opposing discussion and back-and-forth, which meant new information and discussion moving forward rather than the circle-jerk the Mary-bashing was turning into. Criticism=fine. Circle-jerk=not fine. So, I made the Dead Horse Discussion Agency so that people could still have those repetitive discussions in peace. What you choose to make of this board is up to you, but the alternatives to having the Dead Horse board are 1. to let the same damned discussions go on and on by the same posters and drive away people who might like to talk about something else in any given episode (the IMDB solution, see above for how that worked out) or 2. nix those repetitive discussions entirely (which is what TwoP chose to do and it wasn't a happy result longterm). This way, every type of discussion within the rules has a place and everybody's happy. As for why I said something first, that might be because 1. it's my job and 2. when you have to read *every* post, you notice the problem trends and warning flags pretty fast.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 10, 2017 7:37:26 GMT -5
Here's the thing.
Yes, we KNOW that Mary is not being written well. But then, claiming that she's the worst person EVER because she is not cooking for them, or spending time with them while saying she should be more like Bobby and John makes me wonder.
Mary is nowhere NEAR as bad as John who used his kids as bait and left them for days on end alone as children. Or Bobby who blamed Dean for being pissed that Sam neared killed him.
She's not perfect, obviously, and the writing for her stinks. But the bitching about Mary is drowning out OTHER discussions and I am finding that it and "Snotty Claire" as go to descriptions of the characters are pretty damn insulting.
This is also something that annoyed me with the Elimination game, the first two eliminated were Charlie and Becky followed by Anna after Sam. Once I nixed the game more women were eliminated than men.
Focus on the writing if you want to discuss the failings of the character. But I am getting tired of people comparing Mary to being worse than John and Bobby. They were not paragons of parenting.
Also, Clueless, chill the Fudge out. I am getting tired of your boundary pushing. I think putting this here is a good idea. And I concur with a lot of what you've said.
I just want to touch on the bolded in your post. I can understand being annoyed by the trend, and I am sure that you weren't referring to me in regards to the eliminations. However, since those were my votes I wanted to expand on my reasons for doing so.
I targeted them for elimination because I disliked them most regardless of their gender. Since this is the dead horse agency, Charlie was a sparkly Mary-Sue author insert that everyone fell in love with on sight, Becky was a slap in the face overly-obsessed insulting representation of fans, and Anna was (as early as her memory returning) an extremist militant hater who I couldn't stand to hear blather on and on with her vitriol. Luci (the KING DEAD HORSE) and Dick Roman were following right behind along with others.
Just wanted to make that known. That's all
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 10, 2017 11:56:53 GMT -5
I understand. I quite loathe Charlie myself.
But it might be a more useful line of discussion to wonder why so many of the really disliked characters on the show are young and female. Perhaps male-written characters (or those written by female writers who've been "approved" by male colleagues like that) have certain issues with them that turn off female fans?
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 10, 2017 13:33:26 GMT -5
I understand. I quite loathe Charlie myself. But it might be a more useful line of discussion to wonder why so many of the really disliked characters on the show are young and female. Perhaps male-written characters (or those written by female writers who've been "approved" by male colleagues like that) have certain issues with them that turn off female fans?Okay, first I just have to say whoever added the Graveyard (where locked threads go to rot) to the Anything Else section, that's awesome!
Now to the bolded, that is one that could bring some interesting discussion. I cannot speak to what others think, but having worked as a CSR/Manager for an entertainment rentailer for a greater part of 2 decades, I know the entire industry generally is more male slanted. Not many men can write realistically, respectfully and/or compellingly for women and that can turn off female viewers to the female characters. Some female viewers are also not keen on female characters being incorporated into a show and therefore will not even give them a chance. And then you have some characters regardless of whether they are female or male that are just abysmal and even if you flipped the gender, it still wouldn't change a thing.
Some were written poorly, some were just never going to be accepted by the female audience, or some were just terrible character ideas that even a revamp wouldn't or couldn't help. I think in regards to this show and those characters, it's one of those or some varying combination of a couple of them or even all three.
But that's just a basic summary of my opinion on the subject and others may have differing opinions and perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 11, 2017 0:23:31 GMT -5
The first and the third are sort of the same thing, in that they're just two different levels of writing. But yes, it's usually one of those three.
Something I found while editing with Innsmouth Free Press was that it wasn't enough just to produce work with strong female characters doing strong things. It was also necessary to build an audience for that. Characters without precedent can be...unnerving at first for readers. Or viewers. Of either gender.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 11, 2017 8:55:24 GMT -5
The first and the third are sort of the same thing, in that they're just two different levels of writing. But yes, it's usually one of those three. Something I found while editing with Innsmouth Free Press was that it wasn't enough just to produce work with strong female characters doing strong things. It was also necessary to build an audience for that. Characters without precedent can be...unnerving at first for readers. Or viewers. Of either gender. True, they are sort of the same thing. However the difference between them IMO is the first is changeable, you can adapt a character by changing the writing to try and improve or destroy the character, depending on how you write them. The third is the character at it's core, the fundamental idea of who this character is, which is not changeable. Who if at that core is a terrible idea from the start, then the writing change may help or hurt a little and a revamp may do a little more, but the character will remain abysmal. Changing that changes them into a different character.
I agree, it's important in the way in which you introduce a new character. But it helps if the core idea behind them is something that could engage the audience's intrigue, and not a character whose fundamental traits will adversely effect the audience's interest in them. As this discussion was started in relation to female characters, I spoke to it in that regard, but yes, it is true of either gender.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 11, 2017 9:00:40 GMT -5
Yes, but creating a core character that is strong and viable is part of writing. A very important, fundamental part that many writers miss, but it's still writing. And you can change a core character (look at how Jensen tweaked Dean from a would-be frat boy into the Steve McQueen-like beautiful hot mess he is today) to something more viable, but it's preferable you do that before your audience sees that character for the first time. First impressions are difficult to surmount.
Most of the show's popular female characters (including Meg, who was roundly hated for most of season one) got very poor introductions. It's just that as they were tweakable (and had charismatic actresses) to something to which the audience eventually warmed up. Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen...they all had unsympathetic intros. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Hey, we need to improve that," the writers think that's just par for the course.
The problem with Mary is that she was perfectly likeable in the Pilot, but her conflict (AKA her story arc, her reason for being there) was minimal and resolved in the teaser--she existed to be fridged and mourned by the men in her family. Period.
Then they introduced the idea near the end of season two that she had a connection to YED. And then they introduced as part of exploring that that she had been raised a Hunter and wanted out of the Life. That was her conflict--and it still is. This season is just developing the conflict. And the writers kept on with it in seasons four and five because the audience liked that conflict.
Now, the other problem is that the writing is making her look unsympathetic this season. The writing didn't have to put her at odds with her sons for no damned good reason. And there *was* no damned good reason. So, that's on how they write the conflict. I think that's where the trouble with Mary lies, not in her basic character, which has been the same for nine seasons and was previously popular.
It's like, there are ways to write Sam and Dean in conflict without making one of them look like a total asshat, but the writers frequently don't pull that off, either. But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 11, 2017 9:28:27 GMT -5
Yes, but creating a core character that is strong and viable is part of writing. A very important, fundamental part that many writers miss, but it's still writing. And you can change a core character (look at how Jensen tweaked Dean from a would-be frat boy into the Steve McQueen-like beautiful hot mess he is today) to something more viable, but it's preferable you do that before your audience sees that character for the first time. First impressions are difficult to surmount. Agreed. Both have to do with the writing.
I think the way Jensen portrayed him and presented him from the start to the audience, helped create the core of the character that the writers apparently didn't care to expand on or establish, not necessarily that he changed the core of the character, IMO.
It certainly is preferable to do that before presenting them to the audience. And very true about first impressions.
|
|
|
Post by Mystique on Mar 11, 2017 10:34:22 GMT -5
Most of the show's popular female characters (including Meg, who was roundly hated for most of season one) got very poor introductions. It's just that as they were tweakable (and had charismatic actresses) to something to which the audience eventually warmed up. Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen...they all had unsympathetic intros. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Hey, we need to improve that," the writers think that's just par for the course. The problem with Mary is that she was perfectly likeable in the Pilot, but her conflict (AKA her story arc, her reason for being there) was minimal and resolved in the teaser--she existed to be fridged and mourned by the men in her family. Period. Then they introduced the idea near the end of season two that she had a connection to YED. And then they introduced as part of exploring that that she had been raised a Hunter and wanted out of the Life. That was her conflict--and it still is. This season is just developing the conflict. And the writers kept on with it in seasons four and five because the audience liked that conflict. Now, the other problem is that the writing is making her look unsympathetic this season. The writing didn't have to put her at odds with her sons for no damned good reason. And there *was* no damned good reason. So, that's on how they write the conflict. I think that's where the trouble with Mary lies, not in her basic character, which has been the same for nine seasons and was previously popular. It's like, there are ways to write Sam and Dean in conflict without making one of them look like a total asshat, but the writers frequently don't pull that off, either. But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever. Ah, didn't catch the rest of your post until after I posted mine....
I think that in regards to your mention of the popular ones (Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen), that their characters were good ideas, not that they were necessarily meant to be liked but were engaging, and agree that their initial failure's lied in their introductions.
I agree with you about Mary. I don't think her core character was even initially established in the pilot. She was a mom, who died, that's it. But was somewhat established in seasons 4 and 5. And I concur that the writing has been effecting the character negatively for many, the first listed reason. However, I do think that some of this Mary backlash is due to the second reason from the list I previously posted-"Some female viewers are also not keen on female characters being incorporated into a show and therefore will not even give them a chance"- As they have even admitted to it as they bash her.
"But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever."
Agreed.
Just as an aside, I don't consider Mary in the same group as the ones I previously mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by thesnowleopard on Mar 11, 2017 23:54:55 GMT -5
Most of the show's popular female characters (including Meg, who was roundly hated for most of season one) got very poor introductions. It's just that as they were tweakable (and had charismatic actresses) to something to which the audience eventually warmed up. Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen...they all had unsympathetic intros. Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Hey, we need to improve that," the writers think that's just par for the course. The problem with Mary is that she was perfectly likeable in the Pilot, but her conflict (AKA her story arc, her reason for being there) was minimal and resolved in the teaser--she existed to be fridged and mourned by the men in her family. Period. Then they introduced the idea near the end of season two that she had a connection to YED. And then they introduced as part of exploring that that she had been raised a Hunter and wanted out of the Life. That was her conflict--and it still is. This season is just developing the conflict. And the writers kept on with it in seasons four and five because the audience liked that conflict. Now, the other problem is that the writing is making her look unsympathetic this season. The writing didn't have to put her at odds with her sons for no damned good reason. And there *was* no damned good reason. So, that's on how they write the conflict. I think that's where the trouble with Mary lies, not in her basic character, which has been the same for nine seasons and was previously popular. It's like, there are ways to write Sam and Dean in conflict without making one of them look like a total asshat, but the writers frequently don't pull that off, either. But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever. Ah, didn't catch the rest of your post until after I posted mine....
I think that in regards to your mention of the popular ones (Meg, Ellen, Jody, Rowena, Eileen), that their characters were good ideas, not that they were necessarily meant to be liked but were engaging, and agree that their initial failure's lied in their introductions.
I agree with you about Mary. I don't think her core character was even initially established in the pilot. She was a mom, who died, that's it. But was somewhat established in seasons 4 and 5. And I concur that the writing has been effecting the character negatively for many, the first listed reason. However, I do think that some of this Mary backlash is due to the second reason from the list I previously posted-"Some female viewers are also not keen on female characters being incorporated into a show and therefore will not even give them a chance"- As they have even admitted to it as they bash her.
"But the thing is that we've been with Sam and Dean for 12 seasons every episode, so we're a lot more invested in them than Mary, even though she was the first character to appear on the show, ever."
Agreed.
Just as an aside, I don't consider Mary in the same group as the ones I previously mentioned.
It's okay. I did a quick edit and addition before I went off to work this morning. The second reason is definitely in play, but while that's unreasonable in itself, there are good reasons why female fans often reject female characters out of hand, even if it seems contradictory and is not healthy over the long term. One is the aforementioned problem that female characters are often poorly written, so if someone is not putting too much thought into why that is, she (and definitely he) will simply think that women characters suck, so let's limit the number of them. Second is that part of the reason why female characters often suck is because there are much fewer of them compared to male characters. This encourages a closer and more critical scrutiny of them (they tend to stick out as an anomaly) and also reduces the likelihood of their being good female characters by simple virtue of the fact that there are fewer to choose from and they tend to group in the shallow end of the characterization pool. Fridged mommies, whiny girlfriends, and bitchy bad girls don't exactly teem with depth of feeling and charisma. Also, because there are fewer and they stick out, if a female character is a failure, that seems more disastrous than when a male character is a failure. The fans who didn't want female characters in the first place are smug at being proved right, but also irritated at having to see characters they didn't want on "their show" in the first place, while those who did want more female characters are frustrated because such characters are used as an excuse not to have more female characters in the future. Whereas, when a male character fails, it's not that big a deal, since others will appear soon enough and hopefully be better. Mitch and Retch, for example, aren't hitting it with the fans any better than Toni the Twat, but Toni's the one getting all the hate (albeit, admittedly, she really sucked). Third, Hollywood is downright and unapologetically ageist (you said you've worked in the industry, so I'm sure I didn't just tell you anything new or shocking there) *and* sexist, which means that while both actors and actresses age out of roles faster than is realistic and youth is preferred, a woman's career is generally shorter than a man's and usually caps around thirty, just when actors in general are starting to really learn their craft. This means that female roles are written young and callow, and young, inexperienced, bland (and even irritatingly lousy) girls are cast in them. Toni, Ruby and Krissy all fall into this category, as do too many Damsels in Distress of the Week. I'm currently rewatching Bewitched on Cozi TV and I'm struck by how progressive it was for the 60s--or even now. Sure, she was a housewife and there was all this silly crap about her supposed to be "obeying" her husband (though she rarely paid more than lip service to it), but there was a whole host of female characters played by experienced actresses in every episode, guest starring, regular and recurring. Sure, there were some duds but there were so many others that you were bound to find some that you liked. This is not true of most shows, including on the CW, which purports to attract young women by...doing lots of superhero shows about men and paranormal soaps in which the men are more numerous and more vivid than the women, and the lessons for young women in the audience are nasty and unhealthy. So, it kinda makes sense that some fans had no interest in Mary coming on as a regular recurring character and were not interested in giving her a chance, even if it wasn't exactly in their own best interests.
|
|