|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jul 19, 2005 17:50:39 GMT -5
Anyway, I guess the question is, can the writers let the guys get laid without it turning into soap? It seems to never work, does it? That's when shows start "jumping the shark"! Less is more but when the leading men start getting laid (on screen), somehow it always gets sudsy!
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Jul 19, 2005 17:52:47 GMT -5
You can have Tony Soprano, Mr. Birkenhead. I prefer Goren, preferably single (on screen)!
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Jul 24, 2005 23:42:02 GMT -5
Well, some of us like the--for lack of a better phrase--"geeky" types. Smart is attractive, meaningful conversations that go beyond double entendres are attractive, a sense of humor is attractive but that seems to be hit or miss in most TV shows. Not that I'm panting after Goren/D'Onofrio, but he beats a self-absorbed jock. It seems almost quaint, the dark mysterious stranger and you're rooting for just the right person to come along. Whether that's Nora Roberts or Rochester's mad wife in the attic is up for debate. I've actually heard the theory that women view this sort of character as a challenge: "What if I'm the one to bring him healing/comfort/joy again?". Take that theory for what it's worth.
I my own self have always liked the character actors/underdogs, especially the melancholy, deep under the surface types. Mr. Spock, of course, always fascinating. As previously mentioned, Edward Fairfax Rochester, though having safely emerged from my teens I can recognize just how melodramatic he gets in some parts. Quasimodo and Dom Claude Frollo. (Hugo writes the character very well, so even though he's psycho you do sympathize and relate to that guy who threw himself into his work because his personal life was full of disappointments.) The machismo of "The Magnificent Seven" may be cause for chuckles, but the existentialist nature of the characters is intriguing. The Phantom of the Opera in Lloyd Webber--the book is way convoluted, but he's still sympathetic. Anything Lon Chaney did makes me swoon.
I just hope Mrs. Techguy isn't raising eyebrows about all these internet honeys gushing over the "loner scientist" types! Tee-hee we giggle.
--Catbird
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Jul 25, 2005 0:37:12 GMT -5
I just hope Mrs. Techguy isn't raising eyebrows about all these internet honeys gushing over the "loner scientist" types! Tee-hee we giggle. --Catbird Thankfully she's not!!!
|
|
|
Post by hannah on Nov 8, 2005 9:40:25 GMT -5
I actually enjoyed this article, despite it's negativity. What I want to comment on is something he sid near the end regarding the high female viewer rate of these kinds of shows and that it may be due to some sort of "payback". I thought about this and, being a guy, I think he missed the point. A more likely explanation, from my personal experiance with these show..which tends to be a lot suggests somehting quite differnt. I think the "suffereing hero" is just attractive to a female audiance. All these leading men are extremly intellegent, which is for me at least is a huge turn on. Their neurotocisms become endearing especially in light of their aptitude. The fact that they don't have romantic lives is representative of both their commitment to the job and the fact that they're just to damn smart for a normal person. The possible romatntic interests from work who may actllay "get" them are out of the question because of moral issues. The writer of this article cited the Grissom and Sara relationship as an example of their cluelessness but...is he actually suggesting that sex between boss and subordinate is a good idea? More importantly, would Grissom think it would be a good idea? Somehow I doubt it. Lastly, I think the female viewer like the idea that these men are alone...and available. We don't want to see them with another woman, and a bunch of other women would be out of character. Despite thinking two characters are "meant" for each other, we don't actually want them together on the show. This not only signals the impending end of the show, but it also spoils the image lonesome and long suffering knight or cowboy or superhero. Notice that Superman never actually ends up Lois Lane? The real heroes never get the girl, because then they wouldn't be heroes. Then they're just...men.
|
|
digresser
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 149
|
Post by digresser on Nov 8, 2005 15:20:53 GMT -5
Notice that Superman never actually ends up Lois Lane? The real heroes never get the girl, because then they wouldn't be heroes. Then they're just...men. You make an interesting point, hannah, although I'm afraid I have to report that Superman did marry Lois Lane, in both the comics (1996) and on Lois and Clark. What's really interesting is that Lois and Clark lost a lot of viewers after the two leads got together for good. People often watch shows for the romantic tension between two characters, and once it's quenched a lot of people lose interest. Not that this really applies to Criminal Intent, though. Something, I have to admit, I'm very glad about. CI just isn't that type of show. Neither is CSI, I suppose, but I do enjoy the tension between the different characters. I find it makes the characters easier to relate with and seem more realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Nov 8, 2005 15:48:50 GMT -5
but my experience in the real world is that when someone feels tension, if they are lower-dude-on-the-totempole they just repress it; in real life there is much less honest communication - strife - solving -and getting on with the job .... it festers because people have lost the art of communication, self-reflection etc and after a blow up occurs - that is usually it for any type of decent working relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Nov 8, 2005 17:17:28 GMT -5
Hannah and Digresser Wow……the whole Superman scenario…..I have always viewed Det Bobby Goren, as George Reeve’s Black and White Superman, from my youth… I think it may have something to do with him looking great in his gray suit from Season 2. I don’t know, except to say I think your right on the money. That if he did get Lois Lane. The interest of the viewers is over. Kinda of like in real life, I have been married for years, and like all relationships it has had its ups and downs. And I remember once my hubby saying to me, that after we got married. He didn’t think he had to work on the relationship anymore. He had me, the work was done. Of course he knows differently, we both do. That all relationships have their honeymoon period and then you have to work at it. There is something magical when two people are in love and still getting to know each other, like a romance novel when they go to live happily ever after. Your done reading the book.
|
|