Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Page 5 of 40 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Buenos on 1/21/2014, 6:13 pm




Wow, is the show really going to go there with Quinn and Puck?  Shocked 
avatar
Buenos
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 6328
Join date : 2012-04-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  fantastica on 1/21/2014, 6:16 pm

perhaps just that scene w/ quinn and puck in breadstix? maybe talking about beth? just because they are in a scene doesn't mean they are back as a couple. but that guy sure is trying to court the shppers, except i am not sure if any quick shippers are left anymore.
avatar
fantastica
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 9676
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : USA, East Coast
Real Name : the original Kim

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  valkeakuulas on 1/21/2014, 6:19 pm

Just out of interest: didn't Sedillo vow to never, ever to give spoilers after some Klainers tore him a new one? How long is his never, ever? Three, four months?  dryy 
avatar
valkeakuulas
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2113
Join date : 2012-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  fantastica on 1/21/2014, 6:19 pm

has it been 3-4 months yet? more like a month and a half? old habits are hard to break.
avatar
fantastica
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 9676
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : USA, East Coast
Real Name : the original Kim

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  sheny on 1/22/2014, 2:30 am



sheny
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2881
Join date : 2012-05-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  sheny on 1/22/2014, 2:33 am



This is kind of weird combination for me. What are Mercedes and Rachel doing with Blamtina and Unique?

sheny
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2881
Join date : 2012-05-09

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Buenos on 1/22/2014, 3:02 am

Poor Alex, it's not like it's complicated choreography they will be doing.
avatar
Buenos
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 6328
Join date : 2012-04-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Glorfindel on 1/22/2014, 6:26 am


nayarivera #Glee100
Really Glee, really?  Shocked

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
avatar
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8704
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  tanita_mors on 1/22/2014, 6:36 am

wow, could she look any cheaper ???

______________________________________________________________________________________________________



avatar
tanita_mors
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2854
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : Serbia
Real Name : Ivana

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Glorfindel on 1/22/2014, 7:06 am

tanita_mors wrote:wow, could she look any cheaper ???
It's Santana, so probably yes.  Smile

But it's quite tasteless, I agree.
It's not that I mind a healthy balance between seeing all these shirtless man torsos all the time and some nice female skin exposure, but with the hooker boots and the cap..... all she still needs is some handcuffs and a whip.  phr34r

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
avatar
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8704
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  valkeakuulas on 1/22/2014, 7:38 am

o_O What number is she doing for the 100th?
avatar
valkeakuulas
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2113
Join date : 2012-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  tanita_mors on 1/22/2014, 8:17 am

she looks like a stripper. and i'm all for equal opportunity nudity, but can this show look any cheaper. i mean, has glee fallen so low that they have to go to partial nudity for any kind of response these days. the answer is yes, and that saddens me.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________



avatar
tanita_mors
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2854
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : Serbia
Real Name : Ivana

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  valkeakuulas on 1/22/2014, 8:50 am

I find nothing wrong with nudity itself, but in the way these mainstream programs use it. I guess it's rubbing me wrong when natural body nudity in shows and movies ie. showers, bedrooms, mornings etc are soooo hard and revolutionary to show, but a woman in a frilly mini, garters and bra performing is OK.

I'll admit it has to do with cultural differences as well but this kind of gratuitous nudity, which serves no purpose, is weird. And Glee has been doing that for a long time now. I'm almost never shocked with the NSFW imagery that I run to in the internet everyday, but for instance I still found the McKinley boys calender idea and pictures icky. That is exactly the kind of nudity that I hate to see on TV, granted it was the males this time but image that same consept with the Glee girls!

I also don't see the facination people have with breasts, butts and frontal nudity. It's like every show and movie that has those "presented" have a label of being brave, modern, indy or cable with them. I have no need to see Kurt Hummel's butt OR penis, or any other Glee characters either, but I don't want to see bunch of adolescent/teen characters running around stages half nude, unless one of the becomes a porn actor or a undewear model. (And that was a glib joke!)
avatar
valkeakuulas
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2113
Join date : 2012-04-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Glorfindel on 1/22/2014, 9:23 am

valkeakuulas wrote:o_O What number is she doing for the 100th?
What's been confirmed is 'Toxic' with Quinn and Brittany, and 'Valerie' with just Brittany.

Speculations are that this...uhm....attire is part of the 'Toxic' number, as it was reported that Dianna had a long sit at the hair stylists to get big hair, or something (not sure about the specifics).


valkeakuulas wrote:I find nothing wrong with nudity itself, but in the way these mainstream programs use it. I guess it's rubbing me wrong when natural body nudity in shows and movies ie. showers, bedrooms, mornings etc are soooo hard and revolutionary to show, but a woman in a frilly mini, garters and bra performing is OK.

I'll admit it has to do with cultural differences as well but this kind of gratuitous nudity, which serves no purpose, is weird. And Glee has been doing that for a long time now. I'm almost never shocked with the NSFW imagery that I run to in the internet everyday, but for instance I still found the McKinley boys calender idea and pictures icky. That is exactly the kind of nudity that I hate to see on TV, granted it was the males this time but image that same consept with the Glee girls!

I also don't see the facination people have with breasts, butts and frontal nudity. It's like every show and movie that has those "presented" have a label of being brave, modern, indy or cable with them. I have no need to see Kurt Hummel's butt OR penis, or any other Glee characters either, but I don't want to see bunch of adolescent/teen characters running around stages half nude, unless one of the becomes a porn actor or a undewear model. (And that was a glib joke!)
Totally agree. Even though Santana is out of high school and legally an adult, she's still 19 at most. Can you imagine Mr. Shue watching her (and knowing him probably cheering her on) like this?

And it's not the first time either when high school girls were in flimsy bras and girdles etc. (or high school boys being shirtless, and sometimes even both girls and boys showing lots of skin in each other's presence) for a school performance with adult teachers present, like 'The Cell Block Tango', and recently 'Applause' and 'Roar'. 

What I'm trying to say: this level of exposure is not just in the fantasy scenes of Glee anymore, like 'Slave 4 U' or 'Bust the Windows Out Your Car'. Thye don't even attempt to excuse it or make it "functional" anymore by e.g. having Sam be a stripper or the Men of McKinley calendar (tacky as it was).


And at the same time Mercedes and Lauren Zizes, and now Unique, had to cover up their shoulders whenever the girls had matching outfits with shoulder straps for the skinny girls.  Rolling Eyes

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
avatar
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8704
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Ranwing on 1/22/2014, 10:18 am

Glorfindel wrote:
valkeakuulas wrote:o_O What number is she doing for the 100th?
What's been confirmed is 'Toxic' with Quinn and Brittany, and 'Valerie' with just Brittany.

Not going to state just how I feel that Heather is coming back for this one episode (presumably) and gets a solo while we haven't gotten one for Chris all season. I think it's safe to assume that it's a shared perspective here.

Speculations are that this...uhm....attire is part of the 'Toxic' number, as it was reported that Dianna had a long sit at the hair stylists to get big hair, or something (not sure about the specifics).


valkeakuulas wrote:I find nothing wrong with nudity itself, but in the way these mainstream programs use it. I guess it's rubbing me wrong when natural body nudity in shows and movies ie. showers, bedrooms, mornings etc are soooo hard and revolutionary to show, but a woman in a frilly mini, garters and bra performing is OK.

I'll admit it has to do with cultural differences as well but this kind of gratuitous nudity, which serves no purpose, is weird. And Glee has been doing that for a long time now. I'm almost never shocked with the NSFW imagery that I run to in the internet everyday, but for instance I still found the McKinley boys calender idea and pictures icky. That is exactly the kind of nudity that I hate to see on TV, granted it was the males this time but image that same consept with the Glee girls!

I also don't see the facination people have with breasts, butts and frontal nudity. It's like every show and movie that has those "presented" have a label of being brave, modern, indy or cable with them. I have no need to see Kurt Hummel's butt OR penis, or any other Glee characters either, but I don't want to see bunch of adolescent/teen characters running around stages half nude, unless one of the becomes a porn actor or a undewear model. (And that was a glib joke!)
Totally agree. Even though Santana is out of high school and legally an adult, she's still 19 at most. Can you imagine Mr. Shue watching her (and knowing him probably cheering her on) like this?

And it's not the first time either when high school girls were in flimsy bras and girdles etc. (or high school boys being shirtless, and sometimes even both girls and boys showing lots of skin in each other's presence) for a school performance with adult teachers present, like 'The Cell Block Tango', and recently 'Applause' and 'Roar'. 

What I'm trying to say: this level of exposure is not just in the fantasy scenes of Glee anymore, like 'Slave 4 U' or 'Bust the Windows Out Your Car'. Thye don't even attempt to excuse it or make it "functional" anymore by e.g. having Sam be a stripper or the Men of McKinley calendar (tacky as it was).

I have no issue with nudity or skimpy costumes when they make sense. And I agree that to have kids who are less than a year out of high school prancing about in glorified underwear in front of their former teacher, classmates and likely current high school students is... let's just say inappropriate. But this has been going on since at least season 3 - nudity or suggested nudity for the sake of titillation instead of using it to further a storyline. The boys of McKinley was icky not because the guys were unpleasant to look at (though how they airbrushed Darren into unrecognizability was beyond gross) but because no one was calling anyone out on the idea that high school students being marketed like Chippendales dancers was not appropriate. What made the overly sexualized first Toxic performance work was that the kids (and Schu) were being inappropriate and overly sexualized and it was being called out as such. Now Schu has gone so far down the bend that he demands that kids dress in sexually provocative costumes (even if they are uncomfortable with the idea) and punishes them if they don't comply. And it seems to be primarily a McKinley issue because Rachel expressed discomfort with how skimpy her Santa elf costume was (and sexist) and her overly made up look in season 4 was even remarked as being too hookerish in Rachel's subconscious.

When Chris finally went shirtless (and what a happy day that was for us Kurtsies), it was part of a storyline. He didn't strip down to show how sexy he was - he only disrobed in order to show off his tattoo. Chris can show a sliver of skin (like just showing his shoulder when he was showing of his new tattoo to his diner coworkers) and be amazingly sexy without having to be naked. Dancing in underwear and garter belts with the express intention of being sexual is cheap and just trying way too hard.


And at the same time Mercedes and Lauren Zizes, and now Unique, had to cover up their shoulders whenever the girls had matching outfits with shoulder straps for the skinny girls.  Rolling Eyes

Personally, I thought that the thinner girls could have been a bit more modest as these are supposed to be 15-17 year olds and a lot of parents wouldn't be happy with revealing costumes. But yeah, there is the implication that no one wants to see a heavier girl's skin. There was no reason for Unique to be in a pants suit while Tina and Marley were in leotards and stockings during their group audition in the Christmas ep. She might be bigger, but she's not that big.

Man... Naya looks almost painfully skinny. I know that this is the kind of body that popular media loves to parade as being "sexy", but I just find it so unappealing.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

avatar
Ranwing
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3529
Join date : 2012-07-18
Location : Levittown, NY
Real Name : Wendy

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  tanita_mors on 1/22/2014, 10:21 am

i have zero problems with nudity. i am european after all.  phr34r  i've seen blue is the warmest color recently (piracy, i love you), and i wasn't offended in the least. but glee is doing this gratuitous nudity thing form the start and it wasn't quite so bad in the beginning, but since season 3 it's the blaine/sam/jake/... bare chest contest. and while i like seeing good looking male nude bodies, that isn't why i watch glee for.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________



avatar
tanita_mors
Bruce
Bruce

Posts : 2854
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : Serbia
Real Name : Ivana

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Kurt addict on 1/22/2014, 10:41 am

tanita_mors wrote:i have zero problems with nudity. i am european after all.  phr34r  i've seen blue is the warmest color recently (piracy, i love you), and i wasn't offended in the least. but glee is doing this gratuitous nudity thing form the start and it wasn't quite so bad in the beginning, but since season 3 it's the blaine/sam/jake/... bare chest contest. and while i like seeing good looking male nude bodies, that isn't why i watch glee for.

I almost regret Chris showing his body I have to admit I liked the mystery (please note I said almost cause it was a nice sight) also imagination is a big Part of creativity and fantasy " the touch of a finger tips is as sexy as it gets" when it's all laid out on a plate it's not so appealing and let's face it that roar performance did no one ant favours in the appeal department!
avatar
Kurt addict
Sea Monkey
Sea Monkey

Posts : 400
Join date : 2013-08-27
Location : Liverpool England
Real Name : Anna

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Ranwing on 1/22/2014, 10:52 am

As someone who has gone to nude beaches, public saunas, strip clubs and who had no issues with changing in communal dressing rooms (back in my theater days) and sharing a bath at a ryokan with a bunch of naked Japanese ladies, the naked body isn't something that I am uncomfortable with. What I don't like with what Glee has done is to overly sexualize a group of high school kids. Yes, it's always been there, but it's gotten worse because now it's the teacher who is pushing the sexual envelope. When the original six did Push It, it was raunchy (even though they were all covered up) and they were punished for it. When they did Toxic, the group had their performance cut off because it went too far. Rocky Horror nearly got Finn suspended (for parading around school in his boxer shorts), had Sam all but begging for board shorts in order to prevent too much "nuttage" and the performance canceled when Schu finally came around to the fact that his reasons for involving the students in his relationship conflict was inappropriate.

Now we have a situation where the teacher is demanding that his students be willing to perform in a sexually provocative manner under threat of punishment if they don't comply. And when you consider that some of the boys posing for the Boys of McKinley were only 15 or 16 years old... I just can't see this as anything but inappropriate because they were being sold as sexual objects.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

avatar
Ranwing
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3529
Join date : 2012-07-18
Location : Levittown, NY
Real Name : Wendy

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Glorfindel on 1/22/2014, 10:53 am

Ranwing wrote:The boys of McKinley was icky not because the guys were unpleasant to look at (though how they airbrushed Darren into unrecognizability was beyond gross) but because no one was calling anyone out on the idea that high school students being marketed like Chippendales dancers was not appropriate. What made the overly sexualized first Toxic performance work was that the kids (and Schu) were being inappropriate and overly sexualized and it was being called out as such.
This.
Plus the 'Toxic' costumes weren't even revealing: they all wore long pants, blouses and vests.

-ETA-
Wendy: completely agree with your last post (right above this one) as well.


When Chris finally went shirtless (and what a happy day that was for us Kurtsies), it was part of a storyline. He didn't strip down to show how sexy he was - he only disrobed in order to show off his tattoo. Chris can show a sliver of skin (like just showing his shoulder when he was showing of his new tattoo to his diner coworkers) and be amazingly sexy without having to be naked.
I'm so grateful that the one time Kurt showed his bare chest and shoulders on the show it was because it was 'functional' (even though I know darn well that they did it on purpose to get the Kurtsies to watch the ep).
And for him it does only take a sliver of skin exposure to be sexy as hell.  blushh

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Glorfindel
avatar
Glorfindel
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 8704
Join date : 2012-02-19
Location : the Netherlands
Real Name : Marie

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Ranwing on 1/22/2014, 11:01 am

Kurt addict wrote:
tanita_mors wrote:i have zero problems with nudity. i am european after all.  phr34r  i've seen blue is the warmest color recently (piracy, i love you), and i wasn't offended in the least. but glee is doing this gratuitous nudity thing form the start and it wasn't quite so bad in the beginning, but since season 3 it's the blaine/sam/jake/... bare chest contest. and while i like seeing good looking male nude bodies, that isn't why i watch glee for.

I almost regret Chris showing his body I have to admit I liked the mystery (please note I said almost cause it was a nice sight) also imagination is a big Part of creativity and fantasy " the touch of a finger tips is as sexy as it gets" when it's all laid out on a plate it's not so appealing and let's face it that roar performance did no one ant favours in the appeal department!

What I liked about how they did it with Chris (besides the mere appreciation of the aesthetics on my part  tongue2) was that it was so casual. This wasn't stripping Chris down to show how sexy he is. This was casual moment between two room mates and friends who are now very comfortable with one another in sharing a living space with little real privacy. Rachel can shower with Kurt brushing his teeth in the bathroom. It wasn't done with the sole intention of being titillating. And it's miles away from having some girls right out of high school performing like burlesque dancers for high school students.

In fact, if the episode has the Toxic performance done in the setting of a club, like an actual burlesque show, I wouldn't have any issues at all. But to perform like this in front of high school students... just, no.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

avatar
Ranwing
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3529
Join date : 2012-07-18
Location : Levittown, NY
Real Name : Wendy

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  coxfire on 1/22/2014, 1:36 pm

Yeah but   "Skins'   is not an American Major network TV show on prime time with a multimillion dollar investment/return.

I don't think that was your intention but I find this remark particularly condescending towards non-US shows. The investment made on these shows might not be as huge but for the producers and the whole crew working on it, it is consequent. And the loss of viewers for these shows in proportionnaly certainly more devastating than Glee's, who still managed to get a 6 seasons deal after an horrendous 4th season. Besides, even if they are not prime time shows, that doesn't mean their quality isn't equal, nor superior to the US ones.

Skins, Misfits, Being Human (UK), The Returned, are examples of shows that surpass Glee by miles in numerous aspects, be it writing, acting, plot consistency and quality, and even cinematography.

These shows definitely have an audience, and change of cast impacts on them just as much as in other TV show. Misfits lost a lot of viewers after Season 3 because of the cast departures and it took them almost one season to find their rythm back, and they only have 6-8 episodes per season. Skins had difficulties handling the transition, etc., but all in all, the shows handled it far better than Glee did.

Now I can hear the difference between an 8-episode long TV show compared to a 24' like Glee is, but, contrary to Glee, those shows have a very limited cast, 5 to 8 main characters at most. Thus, the time you spend with each and every character largely make up for the one you do with Glee one's, since the cast is was so bloated by the time S2 came that I felt like I only "knew" a few of them.

Anyway, my point was that it is possible to change a complete cast, provided that you have the guns to deal with it. Glee didn't have it. They lacked inspiration to introduce fresh characters and unseen storylines. They failed to renew themselves with the Noobs, and fucked up with the NY trio because they inserted them in a screentime thinner than cigaret paper.
avatar
coxfire
Porcelain
Porcelain

Posts : 641
Join date : 2012-09-18
Real Name : Mel

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Ranwing on 1/22/2014, 2:20 pm

I think that the noobs were doomed from the start, and for many reasons that can be pointed directly at the showrunners. First the show waited far too long to start the process of graduating characters and introducing new significant cast members for the choir. Nearly all the new choir members ended up playing very minor supporting roles (Lauren, Rory, Joe, Sugar) and had no real storylines of their own - they were basically seat fillers. They waited for three seasons before graduating any of the major cast members, and when they did so it was basically a house cleaning with all of the major choir characters (including all but two of the original group) moving on. This would be an enormous challenge for any show to grapple, and Glee compounded it with the PR mess that ended up killing the prospects of the spin off and creating a lot of bad feelings from the viewers who were understandably very attached to Kurt, Rachel, Finn, etc.

Then you had the crop of new actors coming into ND to fill the gap. I'm sure that Melissa, Ryder and the others are all really nice kids and they do have talent. But not a single one of them come close to matching the abilities of even the weaker members of the original cast. They lack not only the strong acting ability of Lea, Cory, Chris and the others, but their charisma as well. The writing didn't help matters. Marley was given a similar career aspiration as Rachel (singing rather than being a Broadway performer) but totally lacked Rachel's drive, confidence and overwhelming ambition and thus became a weak copy. Ryder was Finn 3.0 and with each incarnation, the template of the singing jock became weaker and less interesting. Jacob was Puck 2.0 without any of Puck's complexities. And because the actors were weak, they couldn't elevate the crap writing or get their characters beyond the cardboard cutouts that they started as.

Of the remaining long-standing cast, there seemed to be almost a concerted effort to make them as unpleasant as possible to watch. Tina went from being an ambitious and sweet girl to being an obnoxious harridan. Blaine not only cheated on Kurt, but his fickleness and narcissism became overwhelming. Brittany just became insufferable and Sam not only continued to lose IQ points, but became arrogant and intolerable. The only one who escape having their character made so completely unlikable was Artie because he already had some major personality flaws from the start and he didn't have his focus elevated the way the others did.

The storylines that followed were weak copies of what had occurred in the past three seasons, lacking even a trace of real passion and emotion. You had the cheating storyline, the bullying storyline, the teen pregnancy storyline, the dances and proms and competitions, the straight boy being crushed on by the gay boy... nothing was really new or original and all of it had been done infinitely better in previous seasons.

Lastly, with Rachel, Kurt, Finn and Santana given brief but still powerful focus, it showed just what Glee could be with a shift in focus and kept reinforcing the fact that the ND characters and storylines were failures despite how much focus and support they were given. And with all of the graduates making regular visits back to McKinley and dominating when they did, it just kept showing that the noobs couldn't match what the originals had done.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

avatar
Ranwing
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3529
Join date : 2012-07-18
Location : Levittown, NY
Real Name : Wendy

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Buenos on 1/22/2014, 2:47 pm

   Yeah but   "Skins'   is not an American Major network TV show on prime time with a multimillion dollar investment/return
.

Coxfire:
I don't think that was your intention but I find this remark particularly condescending towards non-US shows. The investment made on these shows might not be as huge but for the producers and the whole crew working on it, it is consequent. And the loss of viewers for these shows in proportionnaly certainly more devastating than Glee's, who still managed to get a 6 seasons deal after an horrendous 4th season. Besides, even if they are not prime time shows, that doesn't mean their quality isn't equal, nor superior to the US ones

There was a reason I prefaced my statement "American Major network TV show" precisely as I did and it wasn't because I was making a distinction based on quality or American TV somehow inherently superior. LOL.  

I could have prefaced it exactly the same way to state why, for example, you won't have more PDA's of the M/M relationship between Kurt and Blaine and that wouldn't necessarily imply it's superiority.

It's like saying that the Pope is Catholic.  It is what it is.

Unlike "Skins', "Degrassi', etc, Glee is an American major network TV show.

It is  because American network TV shows on prime time  operate within a certain MO.  IE you air a TV show, if  it is successful (rare enough) you then continue the formula with your lead characters because you don't want to disrupt your audiences viewing patterns with too much change.  It is a reason why actors in American major network TV shows, unless you are a big/established stars are signed to long term contracts.

Unless you are a reality show the big prize is syndication, which is where most of the revenues can come in because the product is already "finished", cost already absorbed and you get $$$ for it by selling the repeat airings.  Syndication usually comes after 4-5 seasons. (though some make do with less, it is less lucrative).

Even American network TV  shows that people point out to, like "Lost" or "ER", "Beverly Hills", "Grey's Anatomy" , "West Wing",etc. which were true ensemble groups and some cast were replaced, had a very obvious core of "lead" actors who, depending on their contract (in the case of ER) were on  the show for 5, 6 or 7 years.  

Glee was unprecedented, most of their lead characters from the first 3 years, Lea, Cory, Chris and arguably Naya(?) were relegated to secondary screentime while still on the show.  That does not happen  EVER on  American Major network TV show on prime time with a multimillion dollar investment/return.

EVER.  Until Glee that is.

Anyway, my point was that it is possible to change a complete cast, provided that you have the guns to deal with it. Glee didn't have it. They lacked inspiration to introduce fresh characters and unseen storylines. They failed to renew themselves with the Noobs, and fucked up with the NY trio because they inserted them in a screentime thinner than cigaret paper.

Fair enough.  However I was pointing out that to change a complete cast simply has NEVER happened in an American Major network TV show on prime time with multimillion dollar investment.  It can happen with *one* of the leading cast members  because of (a) someone unexpectedly died (John Ritter IIRC was one the last examples) or (b) there was an ugly contract dispute and some one got fired (David Caruso/Susanne Sommers) or (c) the networks let someone go who requested to be let go (Mandy Patinkin in "Criminal Minds") or (d) a true ensemble cast where their exit was built into the script and you have other lead characters already established to absorb the loss (namely "Lost")   It was never because the networks decided to change the leads just because artistically it made more sense.

The point was you used SKINS (or someone did) an example where SKINS is not a American Major network TV show on prime time with multimillion dollar investment/return.  It wasn't to imply other shows don't also have financial risk or have high budgets.

Just pointing out that what "SKINS" and what other shows do on cable, or in other countries,  regardless of quality, isn't something that is done on American Major network TV show that is scripted and relies on actual characters.  It's like comparing apples to oranges.  Cable does it, other shows in other countries do it in different ways (Spanish telenovelas with a finite airing time) but once again apples and oranges.

For the record, I think quality is quality, whether on American Network prime time show or not.  I also think crap is crap..whether it is on a.....you get the picture.

Whether American Network TV shows should change their pattern is another discussion and we'll see if it ever happens with the model you put forth in the future.

Hope that clarifies things.


Last edited by Buenos on 1/22/2014, 3:41 pm; edited 3 times in total
avatar
Buenos
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 6328
Join date : 2012-04-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Buenos on 1/22/2014, 3:29 pm

Ranwing wrote:Lastly, with Rachel, Kurt, Finn and Santana given brief but still powerful focus, it showed just what Glee could be with a shift in focus and kept reinforcing the fact that the ND characters and storylines were failures despite how much focus and support they were given. And with all of the graduates making regular visits back to McKinley and dominating when they did, it just kept howing that the noobs couldn't match what the originals had done.

Ranwing, my own unsubstantiated speculation is that Ryan Murphy up to a point sold FOX network a bill of goods that was misleading. If you look at season 4, a lot of the marketing still used Lea, Chris, and the old cast in the promos/etc. Far more in proportion to what they had (screentime) on the show.

And if you look at the first FOUR episodes (through the "Break Up") they used the NY characters/settings fairly heavily, I think 3 of those episodes had close to a 50/50 split or at least 45-55/40-60 which happened only one other time the rest of the season, ie Episode 9, "Swan Song" which was because they finally had to move Kurt over to NYADA and they gave Kurt/Rachel 3 songs to sing in that episode. So after the first 4 episodes the remaining 18 episodes, on 17 of them McKinley (3 exclusively) and it's characters had usually most of the screen time and songs.

My suspicion is that RM kept on reassuring FOX that it would shift more focus/screentime to NY *eventually* and it never happened,(Ryan and company positive with just "more" focus McKinley would stick and create stars, increase ratings) Naya was deliberately kept floating out there, old cast was sent to Lima to prop up the narrative there and the show got away from FOX in that they relied on Ryan Murphy and company to deliver what they initially promised.

After a while FOX was obviously complicit and had to cover their ass, but I don't think
FOX was ever sold on the old cast being completely sidelined as they were.

Ironically I think Cory's death delayed things as far as a NY transition, it gave RIB cover to extend the school year even more and delay graduation. With graduation earlier they were probably going to go with the insane idea of a true split narrative with 4-5 characters on the NY side and having to give up Mckinley screen time. Yea, like that would have worked with no stars on the McKinley side.

So you have the current mess where the ratings are permanently ruined, the worthless McKinley narrative used up a year and a half for naught, and the show is now limping to it's conclusion with a probably lower budget.

When I think of all the money wasted on the Noob/Blee/Blam show for a year and a half...
avatar
Buenos
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 6328
Join date : 2012-04-20
Location : California

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Ranwing on 1/22/2014, 4:02 pm

I totally agree, Buenos. I think that Ryan Murphy totally conned the network as to what kind of show he was going to deliver. Hence we ended up with 90% of the advertising focused on Kurt and Rachel and their New York Adventures when they were receiving maybe 10% of the actual screen time (and Rachel dominating what little they did get). What ended up was a lot of fans complaining about false advertising, frustration and eventually fans who had been watching the show from the very beginning leaving in droves.

RM was trying to buy as much time as possible in order to try to get the noobs to actually work and make them the kind of stars out of them that Lea, Cory, Chris & (to a lesser degree) Naya became. He cannibalized earlier storylines, which didn't work. He excluded the NY storyline completely from multiple episodes (included most egregiously right after TBU which deprived us of any real focus on Kurt's POV over Blaine's infidelity). Then we had the most disgusting episode - Shooting Star - where they tried to force us to care about the noobs by apparently putting them in real physical danger. None of it worked. And in the meantime, the NY storyline was surviving and surpassing anything done at McKinley even though they were being starved of proper development, screentime, proper supporting cast and any possible chance for their storylines to grain traction and momentum. RM staked the deck completely in the noobs favor and it ended up costing Glee its critical acclaim, awards prospects and the majority of its viewing audience.

When I think of all the money wasted on the Noob/Blee/Blam show for a year and a half...

Don't even get me started...

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

avatar
Ranwing
Inner Grandma
Inner Grandma

Posts : 3529
Join date : 2012-07-18
Location : Levittown, NY
Real Name : Wendy

Back to top Go down

Re: Kurt Hummel Spoiler Thread - part 20

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 40 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22 ... 40  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum