Ugliness in the world (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

I hope it won't be stupid to say that the lack of anything larger than ourselves in our lives might net out the damage caused by organizations and causes that are larger than self. Kind of a paradox. Allan Bloom once paraphrased Rousseau to say that we've come to the point of wonderfully progressively liberal (in the true sense) governance and tolerance -- things that keep our group cruelty to a minimum -- but that now we lack those organizational passions which make us fully happy and realized as humans. So maybe we turn ever inward, cruelly also?

So we're all screwed no matter what?

 

[mr roboto]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

 

[Slapdash]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

 

[Gr00vus]

Yes. The world continues to become darker and less friendly.

does it? Or do we just have access to more information and promotion of shocking situations, most of which are bad?

Agree. Good news doesn't sell. We've got more exposure to information from all over the world than ever before - each day more than the previous almost. Apart from the sensory/cognitive overload (which I do believe is a problem) and privacy issues, I think we probably live in the best of times in terms of human history - we just hear a lot more about the sickos/bad stuff because it's not our normal everyday experience.

I do think we're in a creative rut in terms of what kinds of mass entertainment gets produced recently - everything has to be dark, gritty, edgy, loud. It definitely is grating and desensitizing, but I don't think it represents reality in any way.

 

[rockaction]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Moral ambiguity in entertainment is something that tires me also. I don't have troubles watching the two most morally ambiguous shows of the past two decades -- The Sopranos or Breaking Bad -- they're just not high on my list.

I don't think I'm a simpleton, I just have better ways to spend my own entertainment energies, which generally tend to focus on at least, if not good nor bad, the certain. Life is ambiguous enough.

eta* Also, I kind of like music better than televisual stuff, except for sports.

 

[mr roboto]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story. Your reaction is typical though.

Eta. Take the Dark Knight for example. The moral ambiguity in that movie was fascinating because it was told in light a 30 year history of good versus evil in the Batman world. But if every hero/villain story is like that all the time, it just becomes tiresome.

 

[rockaction]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

I also worry that mine is an aesthetic judgment as opposed to a moral one. It's been done so often, am I just tired of it or is it a moral decision?

 

[Gr00vus]

What I mean to say is that I think the world is becoming more isolated at an individual level.

I think our technology, while making us more interconnected, ...leads to a crassness in our interactions that can be described as dark and less friendly.

It has most certainly happened on these very boards.

I agree with this. Socially we haven't adapted in a completely positive way to the avenues opened up via new ways of communicating.

 

[Slapdash]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

 

[mr roboto]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

See my edit. I'm not opposed to moral ambiguity.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Agreed. And there are still plenty of films and television with clearly defined good and bad guys.

 

[msudaisy26]

In my opinion the ugliness of the world isn't getting worse, it is just being broadcast more.

If you look throughout human history you can see how savage humans are. Maybe the raw numbers of violence are higher now then ever before, but we also have more people on the planet then ever before.

 

[Gr00vus]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

I also worry that mine is an aesthetic judgment as opposed to a moral one. It's been done so often, am I just tired of it or is it a moral decision?

I don't think its a global moral thing - I think it just gives writers more degrees of freedom with their characters and stories than are available when characters are clear cut good guys/bad guys. But hitting the morally ambiguous note over and over and over again gets just as tiresome as 50's caricatures of pure good/evil.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

Eta. Take the Dark Knight for example. The moral ambiguity in that movie was fascinating because it was told in light a 30 year history of good versus evil in the Batman world. But if every hero/villain story is like that all the time, it just becomes tiresome.

There was no ambiguity with Batman in the Nolan films, they were just darker. Like literally dark as in no one ever had decent lighting at their work or home or any public space. Seriously they need better management at Gotham Gas & Electric.

But Batman was a clearly defined good guy and he went after clearly defined bad guys in each film. His biggest internal struggle was not to kill the bad guys and how much he was willing to sacrifice to go after the clearly defined bad guys. That isn't moral ambiguity.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

In my opinion the ugliness of the world isn't getting worse, it is just being broadcast more.

If you look throughout human history you can see how savage humans are. Maybe the raw numbers of violence are higher now then ever before, but we also have more people on the planet then ever before.

Good points. There were people during the 40's that had no idea what was going on in Germany. We should be thankful that more things are visible to us these days.

 

[Reegus]

Wow America has become soft

 

[NCCommish]

Same as it ever was. Humans suck and always have. Now we just have more efficient reporting.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

Eta. Take the Dark Knight for example. The moral ambiguity in that movie was fascinating because it was told in light a 30 year history of good versus evil in the Batman world. But if every hero/villain story is like that all the time, it just becomes tiresome.

There was no ambiguity with Batman in the Nolan films, they were just darker. Like literally dark as in no one ever had decent lighting at their work or home or any public space. Seriously they need better management at Gotham Gas & Electric.

But Batman was a clearly defined good guy and he went after clearly defined bad guys in each film. His biggest internal struggle was not to kill the bad guys and how much he was willing to sacrifice to go after the clearly defined bad guys. That isn't moral ambiguity.

what did you expect after Bale went ape#### on the lighting guy?

 

[Slapdash]

Yes. The world continues to become darker and less friendly.

My wife and I made it 3/4 of the way through season 1 of The Following and stopped watching it completely. It made me feel terrible when I watched it. Like, physically ill.

Let me clarify this. What I mean to say is that I think the world is becoming more isolated at an individual level.

I think our technology, while making us more interconnected, paradoxically dehumanizes us and turns us all into avatars to each other. The end result of this is that it leads to a crassness in our interactions that can be described as dark and less friendly.

It has most certainly happened on these very boards.

I would say that it lowers the authenticity of interactions more than dehumanizes them. Particularly with the anonymity or partial anonymity.

I certainly wouldn't say these boards have gotten less friendly over time.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

Or more that moral ambiguity is real. There aren't good guys and bad guys in life. It isn't a circle-jerk to attempt to present things as they are.

Oh come on. The quadruple crossing storylines (House of Cards) or the sick twisted horror movies or the hero who's really a villain depending on the storyteller has been done 10,000 times. And none of us experience any of that. Ever. Entertainment doesn't reflect real life - it provides an escape or tells a moral story.Your reaction is typical though.

Eta. Take the Dark Knight for example. The moral ambiguity in that movie was fascinating because it was told in light a 30 year history of good versus evil in the Batman world. But if every hero/villain story is like that all the time, it just becomes tiresome.

There was no ambiguity with Batman in the Nolan films, they were just darker. Like literally dark as in no one ever had decent lighting at their work or home or any public space. Seriously they need better management at Gotham Gas & Electric.

But Batman was a clearly defined good guy and he went after clearly defined bad guys in each film. His biggest internal struggle was not to kill the bad guys and how much he was willing to sacrifice to go after the clearly defined bad guys. That isn't moral ambiguity.

what did you expect after Bale went ape#### on the lighting guy?

Fewer apes.

 

[bigbottom]

My daughter is begging me to take her to see "The Fault In Our Stars". It's supposed to be the new Brian's Song: a movie designed for teenage girls to cry.

She can watch it if she wants. But why would I want to see a film where somebody dies of cancer? I've had enough cancer with friends, my mom, my brother, my mother in law, etc. not my idea of entertainment.

Although I won't be seeing this movie, I don't know that it's a good example of the ugliness being discussed. Lives well-lived, a love deeply shared, are the opposite of ugliness, particularly in the context a too-brief existence on this planet.

 

[Chaka]

My daughter is begging me to take her to see "The Fault In Our Stars". It's supposed to be the new Brian's Song: a movie designed for teenage girls to cry.

She can watch it if she wants. But why would I want to see a film where somebody dies of cancer? I've had enough cancer with friends, my mom, my brother, my mother in law, etc. not my idea of entertainment.

Although I won't be seeing this movie, I don't know that it's a good example of the ugliness being discussed. Lives well-lived, a love deeply shared, are the opposite of ugliness, particularly in the context a too-brief existence on this planet.

And Brain's Song was most definitely not for teenage girls.

 

[BroncoFreak_2K3]

Ridley Scott movies will often do this to you

 

[Kal El]

I tend to withdraw from ugly events that happen, but if I'm not careful, I'll withdraw from family and friends, so I have to walk a fine line. I pray, spend time with family, and find positive things to focus on.

 

[McGarnicle]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

 

[Chaka]

I tend to withdraw from ugly events that happen, but if I'm not careful, I'll withdraw from family and friends, so I have to walk a fine line. I pray, spend time with family, and find positive things to focus on.

Have you considered getting a better looking family and friends?

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

 

[Kal El]

I tend to withdraw from ugly events that happen, but if I'm not careful, I'll withdraw from family and friends, so I have to walk a fine line. I pray, spend time with family, and find positive things to focus on.

Have you considered getting a better looking family and friends?

My family and friends are quite good looking. We beautiful people tend to attract more beautiful people.

 

[mr roboto]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

That's a very interesting insight. Shows like GoT and HoC where the main character is not good (Lanasters and Underwoods) are kind of confusing. In both there is a 'good' character that you root for that gets removed, then you are left with a series of bad to worse characters to identify with. Yet they are both excellent shows.

 

[McGarnicle]

Along with no longer watching the news, I've completely withdrawn from anything to do with politics. I find that equally as depressing as the crime/violence in the news. You politicos who debate in here endlessly, especially the really staunch conservatives or liberals, I honestly wonder how you get through the day without slitting your wrists. I can't imagine devoting so much energy to something so dysfunctional and hopeless.

 

[mr roboto]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

You can have flawed without evil. I'm not talking about shiny white knight fairy take here. But a flawed character striving for a truly good cause/outcome is a bit old fashioned it seems.

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

 

[McGarnicle]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

That's a very interesting insight. Shows like GoT and HoC where the main character is not good (Lanasters and Underwoods) are kind of confusing. In both there is a 'good' character that you root for that gets removed, then you are left with a series of bad to worse characters to identify with. Yet they are both excellent shows.

I read somewhere that the new formula is to make the protagonist really competent at whatever he or she does, and people will root for them no matter what. So apply that to Walter White, Tony Soprano and Jimmy McNulty -- yep, that theory definitely holds. Three of the most despicable human beings you could imagine if you're looking objectively.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

Because one dimensional characters are very limited and nuanced characters are more human and easier to relate to.

Remember when the Brady's found the wallet with $300 in it? Was there ever a question where that story arc wold go? That's not very entertaining stuff beyond a certain age.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

That didn't explicitly answer the first question. I think it definitely answered the second.

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

You can have flawed without evil. I'm not talking about shiny white knight fairy take here. But a flawed character striving for a truly good cause/outcome is a bit old fashioned it seems.

Hardly. Batman is deeply flawed. Survivors guilt. Anger issues. Poor personal judgement. But he strives for a good cause.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

True but at the end of the day you know the answer is that he will always try to be the hero in the end.

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

That didn't explicitly answer the first question. I think it definitely answered the second.

Pretty sure I answered the first question completely. Now the second I can't really answer.

 

[rockaction]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Not necessarily. Truly heroic people and heroic acts are fascinating to me. There is no ambiguity in a documentary like Man on Wire. It just is. It's a heroic act. And spectacular. And even the cops are crying, they're so moved.

And that's real life. Surely we can concoct a fascinating heroic story that doesn't need addiction, doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity.

I think what you're really arguing is that what is interesting is the doubtful age we're in.

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

True but at the end of the day you know the answer is that he will always try to be the hero in the end.

Not always. Tony has walked away before. Left the suit to others while he indulged his addictions.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

That didn't explicitly answer the first question. I think it definitely answered the second.

Pretty sure I answered the first question completely. Now the second I can't really answer.

You answered it with, essentially, "Because it's what I'm looking for in a story."

Why that's what you're looking for in a story is a rather metaphysical question.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Not necessarily. Truly heroic people and heroic acts are fascinating to me. There is no ambiguity in a documentary like Man on Wire. It just is. It's a heroic act. And spectacular. And even the cops are crying, they're so moved.

And that's real life. Surely we can concoct a fascinating heroic story that doesn't need addiction, doubt, uncertainty.

I think what you're really arguing is that what is interesting is the doubtful age we're in.

Man on Wire was truly impressive but I can't think of a single thing about it that is heroic.

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Not necessarily. Truly heroic people and heroic acts are fascinating to me. There is no ambiguity in a documentary like Man on Wire. It just is. It's a heroic act. And spectacular. And even the cops are crying, they're so moved.

And that's real life. Surely we can concoct a fascinating heroic story that doesn't need addiction, doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity.

I think what you're really arguing is that what is interesting is the doubtful age we're in.

No that's a documentary and i would hesitate to call walking a tightrope heroic, even doing it illegally. Hero is a much overused word that has been seriously cheapened.

 

[Chaka]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

That didn't explicitly answer the first question. I think it definitely answered the second.

Pretty sure I answered the first question completely. Now the second I can't really answer.

You answered it with, essentially, "Because it's what I'm looking for in a story."

Why that's what you're looking for in a story is a rather metaphysical question.

Because it is more intellectually honest to relate to characters that are flawed, like viewers, than pure golden heroes.

 

[Parrothead]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

Because one dimensional characters are very limited and nuanced characters are more human and easier to relate to.

Remember when the Brady's found the wallet with $300 in it? Was there ever a question where that story arc wold go? That's not very entertaining stuff beyond a certain age.

hookers and blow for the boys and a couple of dudes in leather for pop?

 

[rockaction]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Not necessarily. Truly heroic people and heroic acts are fascinating to me. There is no ambiguity in a documentary like Man on Wire. It just is. It's a heroic act. And spectacular. And even the cops are crying, they're so moved.

And that's real life. Surely we can concoct a fascinating heroic story that doesn't need addiction, doubt, uncertainty.

I think what you're really arguing is that what is interesting is the doubtful age we're in.

Man on Wire was truly impressive but I can't think of a single thing about it that is heroic.

I think it's a conquering of the simple, self-absorbed, self-preservation that we were talking about before.

That to do, to act, to conquer in the face of death is slightly heroic in our present state. For no other reason than that we are impelled to do so.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Because it is more intellectually honest to relate to characters that are flawed, like viewers, than pure golden heroes.

So it's intellectual honesty that makes something more interesting?

 

[NCCommish]

Regarding media, there's a circle jerk in Hollywood and artistic circles to present every character, situation and set of decisions as some shade of gray. There's no tolerance for a set of good guys and a set of bad guys. Intrigue and shock sell more than joy and inspiration.

This is why as people get older they gravitate toward more traditional story arcs (like the Disney stories). It's very tiresome to constantly be presented with moral ambiguity.

It just occurred to me that in my choices in the 5 favorite TV shows thread, the main protagonists are either deeply flawed or evil (Breaking Bad, Sopranos), corrupted by the institutions they serve (The Wire), or complete buffoons (The Office, Simpsons). Very unlike the shows I liked as a kid, like the Dukes of Hazzard, Battlestar Galactica and Knight Rider where you were rooting for the good guys all the time.

Because flawed is more interesting.

Why is it more interesting? And is it only more interesting to those with a certain worldview?

It's more interesting because it makes for a more interesting story. Superman is neat and all but really he is a boy scout. Nothing wrong with Boy Scouts per se but it doesn't make for much tension in the narrative does it? He is always going to do the right thing and for the right reason. Nice but boring. Now let's look at Iron Man. Deeply flawed. Emotional issues, addiction issues, the works. Will Tony be too hungover to be a hero today? Will he even care? And if he does how does he overcome those internal demons to get it done? That is a more interesting and deep character.

That didn't explicitly answer the first question. I think it definitely answered the second.

Pretty sure I answered the first question completely. Now the second I can't really answer.

You answered it with, essentially, "Because it's what I'm looking for in a story."

Why that's what you're looking for in a story is a rather metaphysical question.

No I answered it with what makes that story more interesting with flawed characters. And at the end of the day that is about me to some degree but I have a feeling many people would agree.

 

[Chaka]

Hero is a much overused word that has been seriously cheapened.

We love to throw out that word nowadays without giving any real thought to what it means.