(09-05-2016, 05:24 PM)izzy Wrote:(09-05-2016, 05:16 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: I mainly watch TV for entertainment purposes but it would be complete denial to think the more popular shows, maybe not Grimm, don't have an effect on society. It's not a debate about whether it should but that it actually does whether we like it or not.
For example, there has been a lot of debate about the use of sexual violence on Grimm but definitely on hugely popular shows such as Game of Thrones. I personally believe that they use such a heavy subject way too casually and think of it as just another plot point and a way to sensationalize the show. It's good to open dialogue about this subject but not in the way these shows handle it. I think The Sopranos and Oz had rape storylines that were handled much more respectfully than the sensationalized way Grimm and GOT have used it.
I never had a problem with shows tackling these subjects but with how they do it. I'm convinced that Grimm and GOT writers need to stay away from it because they've proven time and time again that they aren't equipped to handle it in a thoughtful way.
Wow, great post. Fantastic.
I'll just add, that Norman Lear's All in the Family was intended to provoke socially progressive thoughts and the entire show was a vehicle for his political platform, but the issues were handled very well. It always amazes me the depth they went into, and the level of actual education(the subject of inflation was done very well for example) they doled out in that show, given it was situation comedy. To your point, one would hope an hour long serial drama could at least toed the line but you are correct, the writers simply are not equipped to deal with complex issues.
I wanted to add another show that was recommended to me by my daughter, which is "Shameless". According to my daughter, it was one of those shows that's "just like watching a train wreck". She was right. I started watching it, and then binged it to the end. For those who have not watched Shameless, here's a shortened description from wiki:
""The series depicts the poor, dysfunctional family of Frank Gallagher, a neglectful single father of six; Fiona, Phillip, Ian, Debbie, Carl, and Liam. He spends his days drunk or in search of misadventures, and his children learn to take care of themselves. The show's producers sought to distinguish this production from previous American working-class shows by highlighting how Frank's alcoholism and drug addiction affect his family. The show's creator Paul Abbott said, "It's not My Name Is Earl or Roseanne. It's got a much graver level of poverty attached to it. It's not blue collar; it's no collar." Showrunner John Wells fought efforts to place the show in the South or in a trailer park. "We have a comedic tradition of making fun of the people in those worlds," he said. "The reality is that these people aren't 'the other'—they're people who live four blocks down from you and two blocks over.""
Shameless debuted on Showtime in 2011, around the same time as Grimm. I did not have Showtime in 2011 so I never watched the show. However, I knew of it and read quite a bit of buzz about it. It was nominated for many Emmys, and William H. Macy won several for his portrayal as Frank Gallagher. It just completed it's 11th year, which was the series finale.
As I was arguing about the pasty portrayal of Nick as a cop, I wanted to add something here about Shameless. One of Frank's children ends up becoming a cop in an effort to better himself. Despite some setbacks and flaws, he manages to convey how seriously he takes the job and the conflicts he experiences with the different partners he has. He actually seems to be a better cop than his partners, but the department isn't happy with his progress, and so in the end, he is put on meter maid duty. What's great about that is, he loves it and the ending gives the impression that he will eventually succeed in the end.
The best way to frustrate a cyberbully is to ignore him.