Insulted by TV show? (Spoilers?)

[Spear80]

Have you ever watched a TV show, and they throw in a tidbit or an action that is so ridiculous, its actually insulting to the audience. I'm not talking the show's lore, or background. I can suspend my disbelief about a character getting superpowered by a yellow sun. Or the devil got bored so he headed to LA. That's all fine

But stuff like in a recent (on my netflix version) episode of Supergirl, where without blinking in all seriousness they claimed that a blue star, kills everything with a Y- chromosome. basically it kills men. Even if someone came up with in the dark ages when supergirl was first created, back in the days that we believed you could breathe on Mars and Venus was inhabitated by amazons, why just blindly copy it. Superhero lore has been updated with the times.

Another show is the 100, apart from the fact that no one can keep a promise for more than 10 seconds, even the people who claim to be honorable break their word and rules like a normal person changes underwear.. Only to then when the species survival depends on it, actually decice to honour the rules.

Worse yet, at some point a handful of people set out to masacre 300 sleeping people, which is impossible. But they manage without serious injury to themselves. Even if every shot is killshot, which is harder than it looks. Their targets are not raised like politically correct 21st century teens, these are warriors, the kind that have been fighting and training to fight, since they could hold a weapon, they will be up at the first shot, rushing you at the third. Using their brother for a meatshield if he died before them. And of course, the sole survivor is important to the story......

It's examples like this, that make me wonder just how stupid do they think people are.

[FreeElk]

I think that one problem here is that there are more demands within a story than just the desire for a nice plot. In fact its one I see on E sometimes, someone might rush through build up scenes and end up with a character with unrealistic motivation for desires. People don't do that because they intend on insulting their audience or because they think they're stupid but because something demands that they fit certain criteria along the way that they may not wish to.

Perhaps a script writer is told they must include a particularly deadly scene because marketing say it sells and episode 6 is the optimum point to stick it in. Maybe the writer has a deadline or the script is limited by resources and what you see is the writer's less believable plan B after a budget cut.

Sure, I get where you're coming from the explanations don't cost anything and the plots can be wishy but in the end it probably had very little to do with us as an audience and more to do with the stresses and money driven voices on the production side.  Maybe the script writer just isn't very good...in the end if people watch it the accountants are going to chalk it up as a success.

My thoughts, anyway, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt

[Mathim]

Have you ever watched a TV show, and they throw in a tidbit or an action that is so ridiculous, its actually insulting to the audience. I'm not talking the show's lore, or background. I can suspend my disbelief about a character getting superpowered by a yellow sun. Or the devil got bored so he headed to LA. That's all fine

But stuff like in a recent (on my netflix version) episode of Supergirl, where without blinking in all seriousness they claimed that a blue star, kills everything with a Y- chromosome. basically it kills men. Even if someone came up with in the dark ages when supergirl was first created, back in the days that we believed you could breathe on Mars and Venus was inhabitated by amazons, why just blindly copy it. Superhero lore has been updated with the times.

Another show is the 100, apart from the fact that no one can keep a promise for more than 10 seconds, even the people who claim to be honorable break their word and rules like a normal person changes underwear.. Only to then when the species survival depends on it, actually decice to honour the rules.

Worse yet, at some point a handful of people set out to masacre 300 sleeping people, which is impossible. But they manage without serious injury to themselves. Even if every shot is killshot, which is harder than it looks. Their targets are not raised like politically correct 21st century teens, these are warriors, the kind that have been fighting and training to fight, since they could hold a weapon, they will be up at the first shot, rushing you at the third. Using their brother for a meatshield if he died before them. And of course, the sole survivor is important to the story......

It's examples like this, that make me wonder just how stupid do they think people are.

Have you met people? We're not just that dumb, we're dumber. And I work at a school. I weep. But I laugh at South Park because they get just how below-below average we are. Just take a shot of that to innoculate yourself whenever something beyond belief gets under your skin.

[mia h]

But stuff like in a recent (on my netflix version) episode of Supergirl, where without blinking in all seriousness they claimed that a blue star, kills everything with a Y- chromosome. basically it kills men.

It's all about context and more importantly if the show is internally consistent. With the Supergirl episode and the blue sun, the plot revolved around having those four female characters together, so they needed a McGuffin to keep everyone else out. So it's a blue sun giving off a certain type of radiation, so what? Would you have been OK if had been on a planet that had a Y chromosome eating virus? The important thing is what happens next time they visit a blue sun, if they somehow they create an anti-blue sun medicine then that becomes a little too convenient.

Another show is the 100, apart from the fact that no one can keep a promise for more than 10 seconds, even the people who claim to be honorable break their word and rules like a normal person changes underwear.. Only to then when the species survival depends on it, actually decice to honour the rules.

Well that's not true, one of the core premises of the show is the struggle between ethical\moral decisions and 'real world' choices, and more importantly the consequences of those choices mean. Which they've done a pretty good with overall, just looking at the first season when Bellamy breaks the radio so that the Ark won't know he's on the ground, protecting himself, the fall out of which is 300 people on the Ark are killed.

Worse yet, at some point a handful of people set out to masacre 300 sleeping people, which is impossible.

The 100 : 20 people with automatic weapons vs. 300 people with spears. Outnumbered 15 to 1.
Battle of Rorke's Drift : 150 people armed with muzzle loading rifles vs. 4000 people with spears.  Outnumbered 27 to 1. British casualties, 17 killed, 15 wounded. Zulu casualties at least 351 killed, 500+ wounded.
So it's a strech but not impossible.

The 100's biggest credibility problem is the march of time; when the show started Marie Avgeropoulos was 27 but her character was 16, don't get me wrong she has the genetics to pull it off, but the first 4 seasons of the show happen over the space of about a year, and 31 year old Marie Avgeropoulos isn't as a good a fit for a 17 Octavia. But they have course corrected by jumping the shows timeline forward 6 years.

[Inkidu]

The intelligence of a show's writing is often immaterial to the matter. What is important is that you keep your audience in the magic circle. That state of mind where it's okay to believe this story. You cannot strain the willful suspension of disbelief of the audience until it snaps. Sometimes it is just about remaining internally consistent to what you've already gotten people to buy into. That's why status quo is often more important in shows than character growth.

Also, on the subject of Rourke's Drift. Two big fundamental difference between this battle and the scenario that looks to be presented in the 300. One the British were on the defensive. That is an inherent force multiplier that cannot be discarded. They also had turned the mission into a more defensible position with preparation. Also they were using muzzle loaders. They were using single shot breach-loading lever actions.

Two, the Zulu attack was massive, but almost laughably piecemeal in its approach, and the desire of the Zulu's to actually take the mission has always been in question. Not saying what the British did wasn't amazing, but people have always wondered exactly what the Zulu were thinking with that one because they didn't take a lot of casualties, and it's believed they were actually testing the British soldiers' fighting spirit.

20 people attacking with automatic weapons against 300 people with spears isn't a strategy, it's a suicide note. Unless they've got some killer defensive structure to hide behind (which means they aren't on the attack). Even if you win, doing so without massive casualties is not possible. Now you could commit to a running attack where you try to lure your target through a series of traps and whatnot, but something tells me that wasn't done here.

[Mathim]

Ever see the show (or even just the previews) on Youtube Red, "The Thinning"? The whole premise is insulting. All you'd have to do is ask yourself, would you rather be more judicious about breeding or have a certain percentage of your kids killed when they hit high school because there's too many of them? Utterly ridiculous. If things were as bad as that in the show's universe they would have put in limits on reproduction long before it ever got that bad. Not that we're all that much more responsible in reality but at least nature is the one picking up the slack in the meantime instead of governments mandating we selectively weed out the Idiocracy bloodlines.

[Inkidu]

Ever see the show (or even just the previews) on Youtube Red, "The Thinning"? The whole premise is insulting. All you'd have to do is ask yourself, would you rather be more judicious about breeding or have a certain percentage of your kids killed when they hit high school because there's too many of them? Utterly ridiculous. If things were as bad as that in the show's universe they would have put in limits on reproduction long before it ever got that bad. Not that we're all that much more responsible in reality but at least nature is the one picking up the slack in the meantime instead of governments mandating we selectively weed out the Idiocracy bloodlines.

Eh, just because the premise isn't the greatest doesn't mean it won't have something worthwhile to tell. I could see it being a very cutting damning of the Standardized Test mentality of modern America. Not saying it will be that, but sometimes the premise serves the message.

[WindFish]

Supergirl is about as non-offensive as it gets. Sure, it's taken a couple of playful jabs at Trump, but I don't think it's trying to be insulting to anyone. Trump supporters probably aren't the show's core audience anyway. It seems silly to get insulted or offended over shows that are particularly non-offensive.

That being said, some shows can be deliberately insulting. While I enjoy South Park for the most part, some of the past few seasons have pretty insulting to those who disagree with the show's creators (season 19 was the worst offender). And I still remember that shitty smoking episode, which pretty much took the side of Big Tobacco and called anyone who disagreed with them a fascist.

[Inkidu]

Supergirl is about as non-offensive as it gets. Sure, it's taken a couple of playful jabs at Trump, but I don't think it's trying to be insulting to anyone. Trump supporters probably aren't the show's core audience anyway. It seems silly to get insulted or offended over shows that are particularly non-offensive.

That being said, some shows can be deliberately insulting. While I enjoy South Park for the most part, some of the past few seasons have pretty insulting to those who disagree with the show's creators (season 19 was the worst offender). And I still remember that shitty smoking episode, which pretty much took the side of Big Tobacco and called anyone who disagreed with them a fascist.

He's talking about insulting the intelligence of the audience, not the moral or political leanings.

[mia h]

Also, on the subject of Rourke's Drift. Two big fundamental difference between this battle and the scenario that looks to be presented in the 300.

It's this lot

not this lot

One the British were on the defensive. That is an inherent force multiplier that cannot be discarded. They also had turned the mission into a more defensible position with preparation. Also they were using muzzle loaders. They were using single shot breach-loading lever actions.

Fair enough, I might have got the wrong type of weapon but fundamentally they were single shot weapons, so maybe 10 shots a minute. So automatic weapons bring their own force multiplier to the table.

So if 150 British Infantrymen x  10 rounds per minute x defensive emplacements > 4000 Zulu's with spears, why is it impossible for 20 soldiers x 700 rounds per minute x unknown terrain factors > 300 people with assorted hand weapons? Not saying it's a likely outcome but far from impossible

You never see the fight only the aftermath, with lots of dead bodies in open ground.

20 people attacking with automatic weapons against 300 people with spears isn't a strategy, it's a suicide note.

Really? Take the Battle of Culloden, the British were attacking the Highlanders but preferred to keep the fighting at range where they had a bigger advantage. The Highlanders tactic of choice the 'Highland charge' was rendered useless because of the terrain as a result the whole battle was over in an hour. So running over open ground into heavy fire isn't a strategy, it's a suicide note.

[Inkidu]

Honestly, I'm not going to argue this. I just agree that the premise that 20 non-professional soldiers managed to take out fifteen times their number without a serious injury or fatality on their side by offensively engaging the superior force on the superior force's home turf. It's just not possible. Someone would get a spear in the side. Unless they use movie silencers (which are not as effective as fiction makes them out to be).

[mia h]

Honestly, I'm not going to argue this....

And then argue about it 

[Inkidu]

And then argue about it 

That's not fair, and you know what I meant.

[Oniya]

Have to say, the staggered volley tactic seemed to make up for a lot of the individual rifle speed issues.  You may not have 150 shots going off at the same time, but you also don't have as much of a gap between shots.  There's a psychological difference between one volley every six seconds and three 'third-size' volleys every two.

EDIT:  With regards to 'The Thinning', I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode where a similar 'test at age /X/' occurred.  Only in true Twilight Zone fashion, the 'desired test scores' weren't what you'd expect.

[TerribleTira]

Television series in general are usually pretty lame from what I've seen. that's why I stopped watching years ago. I occasionally get a view of what's going on with recent stuff when I have dinner with my parents or go see my boyfriend and they have the TV going to their shows. Then I am quickly reminded why I choose to spend my time writing and drawing and painting and such instead of watching the ridiculous regurgitation that passes for entertainment nowadays.

[mia h]

Have to say, the staggered volley tactic seemed to make up for a lot of the individual rifle speed issues.  You may not have 150 shots going off at the same time, but you also don't have as much of a gap between shots.  There's a psychological difference between one volley every six seconds and three 'third-size' volleys every two.

But doesn't that assume three ranks of 50 facing the oncoming horde head on?
At Rourke's Drift the British were behind various defences so wouldn't be using volley fire like that.
I also think there were practical reasons for the staggered volley; if the line was 1 solider deep then breaking the line when the inevitable close combat started would have been very easy, so they had to compact the line. But if all three lines fire at once, chances are that 3 people are going be to shooting at the same enemy, better to spread out the volley's and hit more people.

[Oniya]

But doesn't that assume three ranks of 50 facing the oncoming horde head on?
At Rourke's Drift the British were behind various defences so wouldn't be using volley fire like that.
I also think there were practical reasons for the staggered volley; if the line was 1 solider deep then breaking the line when the inevitable close combat started would have been very easy, so they had to compact the line. But if all three lines fire at once, chances are that 3 people are going be to shooting at the same enemy, better to spread out the volley's and hit more people.

The standard British volley was to have at least two ranks firing in the same direction - three was optimal.  And technically, they didn't all have to be on the same front - you could have 51 (three ranks of 17) in one direction, another 51 facing at an angle to those, and the remaining 48 facing at a different angle - covering three fronts instead of just one.  When behind a defensive barricade, one rank would fire, then drop back to reload (second rank), and the third rank (which was now finished reloading) would step forward to shoot.  In a forward assault, the ranks wouldn't 'drop back' - the hind ranks would step forward, providing a rolling wave of fairly continuous fire.  There were, of course, numerous reasons for the success at Rourke's Drift, but volley fire was definitely part of the strategy.  The soldiers who fire are protecting those who are reloading. 

[Serephino]

I'm just not real impressed with most recent shows.  That's why I watch those that have been around a while, and I watch a lot of reruns of older shows.  I guess there are networks who play those reruns because I'm not the only one who feels that way. 

[mia h]

I'm just not real impressed with most recent shows.  That's why I watch those that have been around a while, and I watch a lot of reruns of older shows.  I guess there are networks who play those reruns because I'm not the only one who feels that way. 

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for in a show. There are shows like Waco that's part way through it's run that interesting and is doing a good job of what a clusterfuck the situation was and how they got there. At the other extreme there is Happy! that's just finished it's first season, it's a great show but Oh dear Lord is it messed up, when the 'hero' of the show is a ex-cop turned hitman who's really fond of drugs and violence who can see the imaginary friend of young kidnapped girl, you know it's not going to be normal. Star Trek: Discovery & The Orville have both done Star Trek in their very different ways and both have worked really well.

And honourable mention to The Good Place, it's a little difficult to tell you about the show without giving things away; but the basic idea is that there isn't Heaven and Hell as such but there's The Good Place and The Bad Place. The show starts with Eleanor waking up in The Good Place, the thing is she's not meant to be there and it causes problems. Oh yes and you have to watch from the first episode, no jumping in halfway through, but what's not to love about a show that can work a "Bend it like Bentham" movie hoarding into the background and it be relevant to what's going on?

[Mathim]

Eh, just because the premise isn't the greatest doesn't mean it won't have something worthwhile to tell. I could see it being a very cutting damning of the Standardized Test mentality of modern America. Not saying it will be that, but sometimes the premise serves the message.

Doesn't mean it's not insulting, is all I'm saying. I haven't watched the show so I wouldn't know, just the premise as presented in the trailer was preposterously silly as far as suspension of disbelief.

[Callie Del Noire]

I guess it all depends on what you are looking for in a show. There are shows like Waco that's part way through it's run that interesting and is doing a good job of what a clusterfuck the situation was and how they got there. At the other extreme there is Happy! that's just finished it's first season, it's a great show but Oh dear Lord is it messed up, when the 'hero' of the show is a ex-cop turned hitman who's really fond of drugs and violence who can see the imaginary friend of young kidnapped girl, you know it's not going to be normal. Star Trek: Discovery & The Orville have both done Star Trek in their very different ways and both have worked really well.

And honourable mention to The Good Place, it's a little difficult to tell you about the show without giving things away; but the basic idea is that there isn't Heaven and Hell as such but there's The Good Place and The Bad Place. The show starts with Eleanor waking up in The Good Place, the thing is she's not meant to be there and it causes problems. Oh yes and you have to watch from the first episode, no jumping in halfway through, but what's not to love about a show that can work a "Bend it like Bentham" movie hoarding into the background and it be relevant to what's going on?

Oh god Happy is just so wrong.. I found it last night and I’m in the 3rd ep so far..

[Spear80]

So another show that got my Goat was Designated survivor. That first episode just made me stop watching it for while.

I get the idea off course, but the DS is actually within sight of the explosion that kills everyone! That's usefull, if it had been a nuclear event. He would have burned with them all, probably never know what that big flash was. (it wasn't a nuclear event off course, but the whole idea of the DS is based on it being one, if everyone is in Washington, he or she, is supposed to be elsewhere)

Eventually i started watching again, and the rest of it was okay, standard political stuff and so on. Until the one episode before they went on Hiatus, which in itself is a stupid idea. But in this episode. The most powerfull man, supposedly, in the world. Is told over the phone, something bad has happened to presumbaly his wife. Not only that, but his security detail, should have been hopping mad. One of their protectees has been in a violent event. Whether random or on purpose, they should have been all over him just in case.