|
Post by lolaruns on Jun 3, 2008 0:30:58 GMT -5
VL writers are known to be particularly stubborn when it comes to continuing unpopular storylines even at the outrage of the fans. Examples of this include Sarah/Leonard cheating on Jana and Gregor, Susanne falling in love with Lars while married to Carla or now Sebastian cheating on Lydia with her mother Katja.
VL is also shot two months in advance, so even if they listened to the opinions of the fans NOW it would only have an impact two months or more in the future. And it seems that the writers have taken some lesson from the dislike of Fabian as the actor is leaving (no news yet on whether both actor and character are leaving).
Most other VL places I have seen seem to have mostly indifference to the storyline (at least compared to the dislike Sarah/Leonard and Katja/Sebastian inspire), and particular dislike and mocking of the actor and the character of Fabian.
|
|
j9l45
Junior Member
Posts: 622
|
Post by j9l45 on Jun 3, 2008 0:32:39 GMT -5
Ok, I like Olivia. Thought I should get that out of the way because I know that is going to bias a lot of my interpretations of her behavior. That being said, would I want her as a friend? no. And I really wouldn't want her as an enemy. But I love the character and even think she has a few redeeming qualities. I think she does genuinely love Olli. She is supportive of him and his feelings toward Christian. I think one of the most telling scenes is after she unwittingly spills the beans to Coco about O kissing C. Realizing that she has just done something that could truly hurt Olli scares her. Olivia definitely likes to shake things up. I think she enjoys seeing people squirm. A lot of her trouble making is about revealing the truth (ex. Christian's laptop). This allows her to be a great tool for the writers, and is part of her appeal. She has an uncanny ability to ferret out secrets and use them to her advantage. She lied to Andi, yes. But most of the time her schemes are based on finding out what other people want to keep hidden and using the info to her advantage (ex. blackmailing Charlie, or threatening to tell Christian about Coco and Olli's kiss, C+O at the boxing ring) Honestly, how many of her plans would work if other people were honest to begin with? I guess this is why I don't really see her as being evil. She just has a knack for taking a bad situation and making it even worse. She doesn't incite the underlying problem, she just has no qualms about using it to her advantage (ex. she didn't get Sarah hooked on cocaine, but she'll use that addiction to further her career.) She'll definitely add fuel to the fire, but doesn't light the spark (well, ok, that one time .) Overall, in her own odd way, she is one of the most honest characters in the show. You know where you stand with her. She's not going to tell you something just because that's what you want to hear. She's also not gonna let you get away with anything. She will call you on your b.s. (as she often does with Olli.) This is one of the things I love most about her. It's also fantastic to watch. Side-note: I sometimes wonder if she is so obsessed with exposing other people because her own plans are so often exposed?
|
|
|
Post by ivaniv on Jun 3, 2008 0:35:24 GMT -5
As the saying goes if gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers So I for one am happy that writers do not feel bullied into doing anything and do what they want to do. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but it's their creation and their vision.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jun 3, 2008 0:37:51 GMT -5
As the saying goes if gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers So I for one am happy that writers do not feel bullied into doing anything and do what they want to do. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't but it's their creation and their vision. That's generally how I see it as well. Even if it might make me want to bash my head against the wall or seriously wonder what kind of childhood traumas the writers experienced. In the end it's their show (whether it's VL, HO, AWZ or whatever) and my decision to watch or not watch. And if the product really is this bad I can rest assured that at one point sooner or later they'll get sacked.
|
|
mgh48
Junior Member
Posts: 368
|
Post by mgh48 on Jun 3, 2008 0:40:38 GMT -5
VL writers are known to be particularly stubborn when it comes to continuing unpopular storylines even at the outrage of the fans. Examples of this include Sarah/Leonard cheating on Jana and Gregor, Susanne falling in love with Lars while married to Carla or now Sebastian cheating on Lydia with her mother Katja. VL is also shot two months in advance, so even if they listened to the opinions of the fans NOW it would only have an impact two months or more in the future. And it seems that the writers have taken some lesson from the dislike of Fabian as the actor is leaving (no news yet on whether both actor and character are leaving). Most other VL places I have seen seem to have mostly indifference to the storyline (at least compared to the dislike Sarah/Leonard and Katja/Sebastian inspire), and particular dislike and mocking of the actor and the character of Fabian. I agree. It's the time lag filming verses airing. They don't have the luxury of instant response to viewer polls. Geoff
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jun 3, 2008 0:44:49 GMT -5
I always wondered, is the lag in ATWT so much smaller? Because they spoilers are rarely ever more than a week into the future.
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Jun 3, 2008 2:55:11 GMT -5
I always wondered, is the lag in ATWT so much smaller? Because they spoilers are rarely ever more than a week into the future. From what I know, they film about 6 weeks in advance, but they don't post the spoiler information that far in advance nor in as much detail as HOL, AWZ or VL. Maybe it's to keep the audience in suspense? Not sure why... but the most I've ever seen of detailed scoops released is maybe 2 weeks prior for ATWT. I also think that TPTB at ATWT are willing to change things at the last minute and rush filming or cut things out that have already been filmed if they decide to change a storyline in the 11th hour. Other USA soaps have done that as well as I think they're a bit more flexible about their vision if a storyline is not working or met with blistering hate than HOL, AWZ or VL. Cause seriously... DeVa?
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jun 3, 2008 3:46:19 GMT -5
The problem to me is that if you listen to one fangroup, you have to listen to all of them. And every fangroup wants their fave to get the most screentime, the best storylines and the best pairing. And all fans of their pairing never want anything bad happen to their pairing. If the shows obeyed that then there would be no storylines at all.
And we have all seen in ATWT what happens if the show tries to simultaneously pacify both the pro Nuke and the anti Nuke fans. I think they should just go with what feels best to them and (ideally) what satisfies their artistic integrity. Don't write Nuke well because WE make you, but because it is the right thing and the better storyline to do so.
|
|
|
Post by ivaniv on Jun 3, 2008 5:32:18 GMT -5
I think feedback is a good thing, something that writers can choose to listen to, but trying too hard to satisfy/not to upset the fans is wrong. The loudest group is seldom the biggest, that's for one and by trying to keep all viewers in the fold may cause that they all leave. And what is worst when writers start to anticipate what viewers may not like and autocensor themselves. And what was supposed to be a good story ends up as an incoherent BS. That's as I saw ATWT problem when I was still watching it. BTW they did not realise that let's say by showing a lot of Nuke kisses they may actually increase the sales of those meds they advertise during the breaks ;D
|
|
|
Post by gastLXXXIV on Jun 3, 2008 5:50:30 GMT -5
If the writers decide that Olli isn't bothered at all at being left behind on a rainy night somewhere in the city, and being laughed at by his lover, clearly he won't make a big deal out of it. Drama much? No offense but has this been done to you or something? Why is it that Olivia can blackmail people, all but feed Cocaine to an addict, use false claims of pregnancy to bilk someone and otherwise behave like a sorry excuse for a human being and people around here adore her? Christian behaves like a silly adolescent once and it's like this monstrous crime against Olli. Olli who is on the whole a bit sharper than Christian and is probably likely to decide that if he's too tired to continue playing Chariots of Fire that he can just take a cab or a train back home? I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm not expecting a physically shattered, emotionally crushed and soaking wet Olli to come trudging into the flatshare the next time we see him. If he does, well, it's a soap and they decided they needed some drama. Truly. I think it's clear that at the moment C&O are both relieved and having good, clean fun. I don't detect the slightest malice--or malicious slight--towards Olli on Christian's part. As for the psychological / ego aspect. It's absolutely perfect that Christian, having decided to surrender to Olli, recovers his 'status' in the relationship by stipulating that the surrender isn't unconditional. They both know precisely what's happening, it's good-humored and good-natured--and good for them. Re pyschology: there's a strange--and to me very frustrating--phenomenon such that people think they're being discerning by construing a thing as opposite to its obvious nature: i e, yes, she's awful, but underneath it all she's a sweetheart. . . yes, that's cute and funny, but really it's humiliating and offensive . . . it's the basis--as psionycx says--for a multi-billion industry, and, in our culture, that's VALIDATION in capital letters.
|
|
|
Post by ivaniv on Jun 3, 2008 6:06:27 GMT -5
I think there's a tendency to overanalyse every single word and sometimes a reality is twisted so that a certain theory is satisfied not the other way around. I found absolutely nothing wrong with Christian bragging that he left Olli behind, he's faster, that's all. He's supposed to be the bloody boxer after all. And maybe next time Olli should take that motorcycle if he wants to keep up with Christian ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Jun 3, 2008 9:07:19 GMT -5
I think there's a tendency to overanalyse every single word and sometimes a reality is twisted so that a certain theory is satisfied not the other way around. There is definitely a tendency to over-analyze and create hypotheses that were slanted from the beginning when every second is analyzed for meaning. ==== RE: some of the stuff that's gone down on the last few pages...Folks, let's just keep it respectful when there is a disagreement, which will happen regardless but chances increase when people attempt to read meaning in every little thing that is said or happens on screen then decide to state their interpretation of something.
It's fine to have a strong opinion about something but just be careful how you debate with someone who has an opposing view (like using personal attacks ). In the end, it's just a TV show.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by psionycx on Jun 3, 2008 9:11:02 GMT -5
Re pyschology: there's a strange--and to me very frustrating--phenomenon such that people think they're being discerning by construing a thing as opposite to its obvious nature: i e, yes, she's awful, but underneath it all she's a sweetheart. . . yes, that's cute and funny, but really it's humiliating and offensive . . . it's the basis--as psionycx says--for a multi-billion industry, and, in our culture, that's VALIDATION in capital letters. This is exactly what kind of irked me in this discussion. When discussing Olivia's flagrant misbehavior a lot of folks bring up her difficult childhood or present insecurities. Then they argue that she has redeeming features like caring about Olli. All kinds of rationalizations for her inappropriate behavior are made. Christian runs ahead of Olli and it also gets spun until it's part of some evil plot to humiliate his boyfriend! I guess it boils down to favoring one character or another. It's possible to attach any rationale one likes to an action especially in fiction. But I do wonder who would be seen as the worse offender in real life. How many people here would really prefer having Olivia for a friend as opposed to Christian?
|
|
|
Post by Bonobochick on Jun 3, 2008 9:31:19 GMT -5
Re pyschology: there's a strange--and to me very frustrating--phenomenon such that people think they're being discerning by construing a thing as opposite to its obvious nature: i e, yes, she's awful, but underneath it all she's a sweetheart. . . yes, that's cute and funny, but really it's humiliating and offensive . . . it's the basis--as psionycx says--for a multi-billion industry, and, in our culture, that's VALIDATION in capital letters. This is exactly what kind of irked me in this discussion. When discussing Olivia's flagrant misbehavior a lot of folks bring up her difficult childhood or present insecurities. Then they argue that she has redeeming features like caring about Olli. All kinds of rationalizations for her inappropriate behavior are made. Christian runs ahead of Olli and it also gets spun until it's part of some evil plot to humiliate his boyfriend! I guess it boils down to favoring one character or another. It's possible to attach any rationale one likes to an action especially in fiction. But I do wonder who would be seen as the worse offender in real life. How many people here would really prefer having Olivia for a friend as opposed to Christian? It also could be the basis for simply being entertained by a character and not making it be about whether or not if the character was real, would one want to hang out with that individual. There is also the aspect that if you don't like a character that it's totally fine but doesn't mean that other people have to feel the way you do, see things the way you do, nor need to be ridiculed or dismissed because they differ in opinion. There is a disturbing factor in not just your comment but the one you were responding to in that anyone who differs from how you see a character or situation is flat out wrong or irrational. That irks me. There is a fine line between voicing dislike of a character and calling in to question the mental capabilities of those who don't feel the same way as you. Please try to stick to the facts of what the audience has been shown/told and some personal interpretation based on that and less so the mindset of others who don't feel the way you do about a character or situation.
|
|
|
Post by GayTime on Jun 3, 2008 9:39:53 GMT -5
wow. i'm wondering if some of the writers read this and go 'well, this is NOT what we intended.'
can we all allow each other the freedom to like any character we want for all possible reasons? i love olivia because i love the bitches on a soap, even the somewhat softcore ones like her (since tanja is the queen bee in that regard, we just never get to see her because her storyline in 100% absolutely irrelevant to ollian). olli is friends with olivia because she's family and because unlike HOLLYOAKS with its cast of biblical proportions he really doesn't have many people to choose from :-)
that is the way i look at it and if you want to see it any other way, good for you!!!!!! please, please, please, stop telling each other you're wrong when you don't share an opinion about these characters.
one of the most clever things in regards to works of fiction i've ever heard was said in the documentary THE CELLULOID CLOSET: no two people see the same movie. this can be easily translated to a tv show. just because someone's perception is different doesn't mean it is wrong and worthy of being attacked.
chill. it's what olli would do- or... would he? :-)
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Jun 3, 2008 9:43:48 GMT -5
I think people have a tendency to slot heroes and villains into different categories. Saying that Olivia is pretty nice and remorseful as a villain is like saying she runs fast enough to win the Special Olympics. While saying Leonard is actually a pretty crappy hero because of all the pain he has caused means that he just runs last in the top league. Of course the best villain is still likely to be worse than the worst hero compared to what bad they did, but people still have a tendency to do comparison. They slot characters into their categories and start comoparing them in those categories and within the standards of those categories.
So when people complain about Leonard or Christian doing not so nice things they aren't saying that they are bad people, but mostly that they don't fullfill their role as perfect heroes. While it can be argued that Olivia plays her role as villainess or semi-villainess rather perfectly. But being in this category also means that she isn't eligible for certain things like a big fat happily ever after dream wedding.
There's also the aspect that how nice somebody is has little to do with whether they are a *good character*. Since we are talking imaginary worlds with imaginary crimes against imaginary people the one true measurement is whether or not they are entertaining. You can have a flowery sweet perky perfect heroine who has never done anything wrong in her life and she can still be a bad and boring character. That's why anti-heroes are often popular particularly if they have a sharp tongue and good jokes (like Spike on Buffy, T-Bag or Mahone on Prison Break, Logan on Veronica Mars, Kimberly on Melrose Place) because people perceive them as entertaining while lawful good characters are often limited in what they can do.
TV shows aren't morality contests, they are entertainment contests. Moralities are just one of many things that help us make up our minds on how to rate a character, there is humor, whether they are good actors, whether we are attracted to them. It can be random things like them having an annoying voice or ticks we don't like. There is also such things like near or far morality. Not many people know a serial killing black widow type character like Tanja in their life, but they might have first hand experience with people who gossip, cheat, lie to their loved ones, pick on the ones weaker than themselves, act holier than thou and therefore might react to these situations more strongly with dislike because they are *familiar*.
|
|
restenergy
Full Member
Olli forever (and Christian, too)
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by restenergy on Jun 3, 2008 10:22:28 GMT -5
When discussing Olivia's flagrant misbehavior a lot of folks bring up her difficult childhood or present insecurities. Then they argue that she has redeeming features like caring about Olli. All kinds of rationalizations for her inappropriate behavior are made. I think that Olivia is a complex character. She does have redeeming features. She has had past difficulties and present insecurities that affect her. She does some truly terrible and reprehensible things. These are all mixed together in a package that some find very dislikable, and others find quite entertaining. Well, maybe that goes a tad farther than has been actually suggested, but I do think that the little joke of Christian's is just that, a little joke. He's having some good natured fun. And he might use it for some teasing later. Christian needs something to tease Olli about, after all.
|
|
mgh48
Junior Member
Posts: 368
|
Post by mgh48 on Jun 3, 2008 10:27:13 GMT -5
I do love a good villain, I admit. I'd rate Olivia somewhat mediocre as an arch-villainness. She's not completely socio-pathic, as she is somewhat redeemed by her honest 'love' or fondness for Oliver. Her compulsion to blackmail or threaten to reveal secrets being her only crimes that I, myself, have seen.
Of course, I know there is a longer history I don't know. Once I find all that out, no doubt my opinions of this character will change. True sociopaths I cannot empathize with on any level (Lord Voldemort, for example) and I typically despise them. Oh, and this Wolle character: sleazy, money-grubbing manipulator. He doesn't care about the men in his employ, only what money they can bring to him. This kind of character I'll never 'like' and hope, eventually, he gets what he deserves.
As for other's opinions: I love discussion and debate. I appreciate other's views---mainly because they tend to be smarter and better expressed than my own (like lola and Bchick). I learn a lot from others---and never lapse into scorn (unless I am speaking to a bigot or religious fanatic; in which case, I'll do my best to ignore them with all my power, first. If they persist, then yeah, I can become ill-mannered with the best of them! ;D )
Anyway, thanks for enduring my rambling. I just received some excellent, awesome, gigantic news which has lifted a huge burden from me today! WOOOT!)
thanks Geoff
|
|
|
Post by psionycx on Jun 3, 2008 10:39:04 GMT -5
Well, maybe that goes a tad farther than has been actually suggested, but I do think that the little joke of Christian's is just that, a little joke. He's having some good natured fun. And he might use it for some teasing later. Christian needs something to tease Olli about, after all. Actually, I'm inclined to believe that lolaruns is probably right on the money here and it was more a question of shooting a scene without needing both Thore and Jo. This kind of playful competitiveness is in character for Christian and it would eliminate the need to have Olli in the scene, especially since it's a brief one and they would either need to stretch it to give Olli some lines or else just have him stand there doing nothing. Christian seems to be Judith's designated gay friend just like Olli is Olivia's. That makes sense too given the way they're writing Judith. She likes to rant and Christian is perhaps more likely to listen than Olli who would want to try and get more of an opinion in. Character dynamics play a role here. Hopefully she's not another Vanessa. I don't think she is though. There's no romantic chemistry between her and Christian. At least Vanessa clearly had a thing for Deniz. Judith had Christian pegged as Olli's boyfriend even before he actually was, so I don't think she has any fancies about him. But who knows? Soap writers can do anything.
|
|
restenergy
Full Member
Olli forever (and Christian, too)
Posts: 1,667
|
Post by restenergy on Jun 3, 2008 11:10:44 GMT -5
Well, maybe that goes a tad farther than has been actually suggested, but I do think that the little joke of Christian's is just that, a little joke. He's having some good natured fun. And he might use it for some teasing later. Christian needs something to tease Olli about, after all. Actually, I'm inclined to believe that lolaruns is probably right on the money here and it was more a question of shooting a scene without needing both Thore and Jo. Well, yes. There are two forms of causality that occur in drama (be it TV, film, stage, or even in a book). There is the causality of practical things for the purpose of practicality or for the need of the mechanics of telling a story. Then there is the causality that is internal to the story and the characters and world in which it is set. Lola gets to the practical causality. I'm thinking more of the internal causality. Both are functioning simultaneously (it is hoped, when they don't, that's when huge plot holes develop).
|
|
|
Post by psionycx on Jun 3, 2008 11:46:52 GMT -5
Well, yes. There are two forms of causality that occur in drama (be it TV, film, stage, or even in a book). There is the causality of practical things for the purpose of practicality or for the need of the mechanics of telling a story. Then there is the causality that is internal to the story and the characters and world in which it is set. Lola gets to the practical causality. I'm thinking more of the internal causality. Both are functioning simultaneously (it is hoped, when they don't, that's when huge plot holes develop). Well, looking at it this scene it was just another of Judith's patented rants. Fortunately Christian had his water bottle with him so he could at least do something with his mouth while not being able to easily interject much in the way of words. It's a brief scene and Judith did the majority of the talking (and pretty much all of the emoting). Having Olli on-hand would have just cluttered things up. Unless of course he and Christian were to just start kissing. In terms of deeper character motivation I don't know if there's much to be read into it here given that Olli was pretty clear from the get-go that he didn't expect to be able to keep pace with Christian. Christian's running to get in shape for boxing, not for leisure, so I don't think that it would be effective from a workout perspective to stop and wait for Olli to catch up all the time. And if it's humiliating for Olli to be left behind, how much more humiliating would it be to have Christian running in circles around him? That said, I would think Christian wants Olli to run because he'd like him to get into a level of fitness where they could run together. He gets some benefit from encouraging Olli to do more cardio after all.
|
|
elrohir525
New Member
Internationally renowned giver of beavers!
Posts: 56
|
Post by elrohir525 on Jun 3, 2008 13:52:34 GMT -5
wow. i'm wondering if some of the writers read this and go 'well, this is NOT what we intended.' can we all allow each other the freedom to like any character we want for all possible reasons? i love olivia because i love the bitches on a soap, even the somewhat softcore ones like her (since tanja is the queen bee in that regard, we just never get to see her because her storyline in 100% absolutely irrelevant to ollian). olli is friends with olivia because she's family and because unlike HOLLYOAKS with its cast of biblical proportions he really doesn't have many people to choose from :-) that is the way i look at it and if you want to see it any other way, good for you!!!!!! please, please, please, stop telling each other you're wrong when you don't share an opinion about these characters. one of the most clever things in regards to works of fiction i've ever heard was said in the documentary THE CELLULOID CLOSET: no two people see the same movie. this can be easily translated to a tv show. just because someone's perception is different doesn't mean it is wrong and worthy of being attacked. chill. it's what olli would do- or... would he? :-) I think these are words of wisdom, and I hope that in expressing my admittedly strong opinion, I never came across as denigrating anyone else's perspective. I may disagree with what others say, but I still respect completely anyone's right to disagree with me.
|
|