Hear that sound?
That's the sound of the last shred of Laurel's likeability being flushed down the toilet.
It didn't take this long - it was gone a long, LONG time ago.
She makes getting through episodes of Arrow a slog.
Alright. I dig all the cool kids hate Laurel. And I'm not just saying this to y'all... she's a popular topic of discussion everywhere.
And that's the bit I don't get. Everywhere I go for fan discussion, it's Laurel Laurel Laurel. Sometimes Olicity gets a shout out and there's some drooling over Ollie's abs but it's mostly Laurel. Lots of talk about others goes toward comparing them to Laurel. Even if its out of dislike she is almost all Arrow fans seem to want to talk about.
And good God it makes the Arrow fandom boring. Its a freaking broken record. Especially because to me, she's generally a mediocre character not worth all that attention. I bring her up sometimes as in my devils advocate para in my above post just to hear something different about her even if it's in my own voice. But I also bring up Ollie, Sara, Moira, etc. hardly ever a reply. Just more Laurel Laurel Laurel.
So--why do you watch the show? Is there anything y'all like about it?
Or do you just hatewatch it for Laurel, and that's why she's the only regular topic of conversation? I really want to know.
I mean, I'm all for a bit of ranting when needed but I like to talk about things I liked an try to analyze things and... acknowledge there's a rest of a show generally. I'm not saying don't rant I'm just wondering if there's anything else you like or would want to talk about as well.
I mean this was a humdinger of an episode. Nyssa Raatko! Alex Kingston! Caity Lotz on the salmon ladder? Felicity trying to do the right thing and getting in trouble! The Arrow kicking ass! Moira and Blood's conversation!
But drunk girl throws tantrum at the very end, and that's all you can talk about? That's all that matters? That's all that left an impression on you?
Huh.
I was fine with not saying any more, but since someone asked (and opened that door)...
I can't speak for the rest of the "Arrow fandom" (whoever the heck they are, and I don't care about).
But, Laurel is so bad that she overshadows all of that. ALL OF THAT. And - sorry to the fans - the show's not good enough to compensate for Laurel. Sorry.
Don't get me wrong - it's still decent (still no Agents of SHIELD, since for all the squawking on Skye, she's got nothing on Laurel) and I generally like the DC universe from what little I know of it (Superman is my favorite comic book character/superhero), so I still watch because there's still some good to be found. But it's not really that great of a show. (Needless to day - that list about how Arrow supposedly 'became the best superhero show on television'? Yeahhhhhh...... NO. Though I admit it definitely has a couple of valid points, which are some other reasons why I still consider Arrow worth watching.)
Sorry if my critical posts riles up some of the fans.
|
So, on non-Laurel related topics;
The 'Daughter of the Dragon' or whatever was a pretty good fighter, or, at least, well enough choreographed that she didn't look like someone pretending to fight. (Something that used to bug me on the Highlander series, the occasional guest-star of the week flailing around who had obviously never held a pointed stick before, let along a sword.)
Sara (Caity?) doing the ridiculously over-the-top chin-up bar-thing that Ollie does all the time was neat. Nice to see that someone else in the Arrowverse on the planet can do that 'exercise.'
I like Sara's upside down attempt at a smile, where the sides of her mouth curl down, more than up. It's kind of neat.
Alright. I dig all the cool kids hate Laurel. And I'm not just saying this to y'all... she's a popular topic of discussion everywhere.
And that's the bit I don't get. Everywhere I go for fan discussion, it's Laurel Laurel Laurel. Sometimes Olicity gets a shout out and there's some drooling over Ollie's abs but it's mostly Laurel. Lots of talk about others goes toward comparing them to Laurel. Even if its out of dislike she is almost all Arrow fans seem to want to talk about.
I don't normally laser-focus on Laurel, but the main problem with her is that she gets a LOT more screen time than she deserves, and this was somewhat of a Laurel focused episode, despite the main plot being all about Sara, all of the flashbacks focused on Laurel (and Laurel's obliviousness to Sara snaking her boyfriend) and all that, finally culminating in Laurel deciding to be a b!$%$ and shatter a family reunion with a presumed dead daughter with her selfish b#%%!&@#.
That said, it doesn't ruin the episode (which was awesome), and it doesn't make Laurel a poorly written character...it's very in character for someone in her position. It just makes her unlikeable.
She's relatable, but unsympathetic. Much like Walter White.
Other than that, I rarely feel the need to point out what was great in an episode, especially if the whole thing was. Much easier to pick out the one thing I DON'T like rather than list the 20 things I DO.
It used to be Thea. Now it's Laurel.
But, Laurel is so bad that she overshadows all of that. ALL OF THAT. And - sorry to the fans - the show's not good enough to compensate for Laurel. Sorry.
Don't get me wrong - it's still decent (still no Agents of SHIELD, since for all the squawking on Skye, she's got nothing on Laurel)
Author's pets gag me like nothing else.
Laurel is a bad person.
Skye is a terrible CHARACTER.
and I generally like the DC universe from what little I know of it (Superman is my favorite comic book character/superhero), so I still watch because there's still some good to be found. But it's not really that great of a show. (Needless to day - that list about how Arrow supposedly 'became the best superhero show on television'? Yeahhhhhh...... NO. Though I admit it definitely has a couple of valid points, which are some other reasons why I still consider Arrow worth watching.)
>Opinions.
Sorry if my critical posts riles up some of the fans.
Critical implies criticism. "I don't like it" is not a criticism.
Feel free to dislike, but it baffles me why you'd attempt to "rile up fans" (since there's no reason to write this last bit unless that was your intent from the start).
I was fine with not saying any more, but since someone asked (and opened that door)...
My name is "DeathQuaker" for the record. :)
But, Laurel is so bad that she overshadows all of that. ALL OF THAT. And - sorry to the fans - the show's not good enough to compensate for Laurel. Sorry.Don't get me wrong - it's still decent (still no Agents of SHIELD, since for all the squawking on Skye, she's got nothing on Laurel) and I generally like the DC universe from what little I know of it (Superman is my favorite comic book character/superhero), so I still watch because there's still some good to be found. But it's not really that great of a show. (Needless to day - that list about how Arrow supposedly 'became the best superhero show on television'? Yeahhhhhh...... NO. Though I admit it definitely has a couple of valid points, which are some other reasons why I still consider Arrow worth watching.)
What ARE the reasons you consider Arrow worth watching? What IS the good to be found? If you find this one character so infuriating it distracts you from anything else, why do you keep going back? Are there characters you like? Do you like the plot arcs? The special effects? If not these things, what, specifically?
Sorry if my critical posts riles up some of the fans.
Your posts are neither critical nor riling. My frustration is more with a broad reaction to lots of fan discussion across several media.
I don't normally laser-focus on Laurel, but the main problem with her is that she gets a LOT more screen time than she deserves, and this was somewhat of a Laurel focused episode, despite the main plot being all about Sara, all of the flashbacks focused on Laurel (and Laurel's obliviousness to Sara snaking her boyfriend) and all that, finally culminating in Laurel deciding to be a b&%$+ and shatter a family reunion with a presumed dead daughter with her selfish b%*%*+&#.
I saw the flashbacks focusing on the whole family, personally, and the relationship Sara and Laurel had.
Given all the focus on Sara and her relationship both with her family and with Nyssa, I really felt like the episode was about her.
Different POVs, I guess.
That said, it doesn't ruin the episode (which was awesome), and it doesn't make Laurel a poorly written character...it's very in character for someone in her position. It just makes her unlikeable.
She's relatable, but unsympathetic. Much like Walter White.
Fair 'nuff.
Other than that, I rarely feel the need to point out what was great in an episode, especially if the whole thing was. Much easier to pick out the one thing I DON'T like rather than list the 20 things I DO.
I think we all are drawn to wanting to vent. It just leads to lopsided discussion, I guess. I really just want to fangirl and analyze the show and I just don't know where I can find the opportunity to do that in a more balanced way. Nowhere, I guess.
So, on non-Laurel related topics;
THANK YOU!
The 'Daughter of the Dragon' or whatever was a pretty good fighter, or, at least, well enough choreographed that she didn't look like someone pretending to fight. (Something that used to bug me on the Highlander series, the occasional guest-star of the week flailing around who had obviously never held a pointed stick before, let along a sword.)
The Daughter of the Demon was played by Katrina Law and I agree she moved very fluidly and performed very well. I don't know if we'll see her again but I hope so.
A smaller thing, but I also really loved her costume.
Sara (Caity?) doing the ridiculously over-the-top chin-up bar-thing that Ollie does all the time was neat. Nice to see that someone else in the Arrowverse on the planet can do that 'exercise.'
Yes, Sara/Caity Lotz on the salmon ladder was a beautiful thing.
I've heard Stephen Amell (Ollie) talk about how much he has to practice on that thing as he knows they will inevitably make him do it at some point.
I like Sara's upside down attempt at a smile, where the sides of her mouth curl down, more than up. It's kind of neat.
She has something very unique/compelling about her facial expressions in general, I agree.
I was really glad she
Didn't die this episode. I really thought they were going to go that route for a minute--usually I feel like I can predict the steps the show will take but they really had me fooled when she took the poison. But I am glad they are keeping her and will develop her and her relationships more.
I less dug her and Ollie hooking up over cheesy music at the end. It felt really weird, especially with Ollie being so obsessive over Felicity lately.
she gets a LOT more screen time than she deserves
It used to be Thea. Now it's Laurel.
Totally agree with these two points. Entirely.
Laurel is a bad person.
Skye is a terrible CHARACTER.
>Opinions. I can easily watch Skye, I can't watch Laurel. And when this is about spending my previous entertainment time watching a show, that's the end of the story right there.
>Opinions.
You don't say? A fascinating observation on your part.
Critical implies criticism. "I don't like it" is not a criticism.
Feel free to dislike, but it baffles me why you'd attempt to "rile up fans" (since there's no reason to write this last bit unless that was your intent from the start).
You're incorrect. In any case - see (much) earlier in this thread for the reason why I stated it as such.
I was fine with not saying any more, but since someone asked (and opened that door)...My name is "DeathQuaker" for the record. :)
I know... ;) But I didn't want to specifically call you out! (Just in case you wanted to ignore me.)
What ARE the reasons you consider Arrow worth watching? What IS the good to be found? If you find this one character so infuriating it distracts you from anything else, why do you keep going back? Are there characters you like? Do you like the plot arcs? The special effects? If not these things, what, specifically?
That link that I mentioned in my previous post? A lot of that (not all of it, but a whole bunch of it) is the reason why I watch. Decent plot, DC references, "celebrates the superhero genre", reasonably high production values (notably good fight scenes), some of the flashbacks (but not all - S1 had a lot of misses, since the mercenaries were weird and lame, and somewhat inexplicable), "Arrow knows what — and who — it is fighting for". For me, those are powerful reasons to watch and enable me to choke down Laurel and the CW moments. And, there's also this stupid thing called 'hope'. Maybe it'll get better. Maybe some miracle will happen and I'll be blown away. It's not impossible - look what they did with Thea. She nearly stopped me from watching the show in S1, and now look at her... what an amazing improvement! I choked down 10 seasons of Smallville, the angst, Lana Lang and all, to eventually get the Justice League and one of the best final 5 minutes on TV EVER. So... hope.
The execution of the show leaves much to be desired (Laurel, the angsty humorless CW smear - both which majorly impact my enjoyment of the show), but there's still enough to keep watching. But Laurel is still Laurel, lame angst is lame angst, and it's hard not to mention since it permeates this show. It deserves criticism for that, AFAIC, and shouldn't be glossed over or ignored. So I'm not. It doesn't get a free pass from me just because it's a comic book related (which, admittedly, is a thing I'm not all that into) with some cool action. If others want to... *shrug* Ignore me. (But one has to admit - the time between my posts was fairly lengthy, and I only called out Laurel again when it got near-unbearable (again) and when others mentioned it first.)
I really just want to fangirl and analyze the show and I just don't know where I can find the opportunity to do that in a more balanced way. Nowhere, I guess.
Probably nowhere. But, I'm curious - you can't fangirl and analyze to your heart's content, while ignoring those posts that talk about/criticize things you don't want to talk about?
(If what you're seeing is occurring all over the place... well, there's very good reason for that, I'd say.)
I loved several items in the latest episode. The episode as a whole, though, kind of felt disjointed. Am I the only one who thought that? It just didn't flow as well as most other episodes.
Also, here's an article about what's coming up for the rest of the season. Some "spoilers" (more like teasers really) in there!
Arrow executive producers Andrew Kreisberg and Marc Guggenheim are dropping details about everything from the arrival of Nyssa al Ghul (Katrina Law) to the many threats that Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) will face before season 2 reaches its finale.
Also I concur Rynjin, Laural=bad person Skye=bad character....infact IMO the team on AoS is 4/6 bad characters...which is sad I really want that show to be good.
|
|
An interesting thing about this show, in some ways similar to, in some ways very different from, Smallville, is how we are coming into a show about a comic book superhero, who, to comic readers, has been around in various incarnations for forty or fifty years now, and who most comic book fans have met fully realized, all grown up and 'a hero.'
With shows like this, we saw Oliver Queen first return to Starling City as a killer vigilante, who would not only one-shot, one-kill people shooting at him, but snap the necks of people who knew his secret. Cue fan uproar. And then, he changes. He's hit with a pretty anvilicious in-your-face example of the path he's on, with Helena Bertinelli, who takes his casual disdain for life to the not-entirely-un-logical extreme of killing any cops or civilians who get in her way.
And so, he grows. And yet, he doesn't just automatically get it right, just because he's the protagonist and every choice he makes has to be confirmed retroactively by the writing as the right choice. Instead, he goes a bit too far to the other side, swearing an oath to deadTommy that he's not going to kill, only to have that prove an unrealistic swerve in the *other* direction.
In a show not written as well, whatever choice he makes, no matter how over the top, would end up being 'proven' to be right (and, even a *badly* written show, anyone who disagreed with his choices would have their noses rubbed in how terrible wrong they were).
Arrow seems quite a bit better written than that, and so, in the case of Laurel, I'm prepared to see her spiral-of-destruction leading *somewhere.* They already smacked down some assumptions about Ollie-as-killer, and, while I don't care for the amount of screen time this particular arc is taking (just as I didn't initially love the flashbacks, or Roy, or all the talking up of Sara, which have, generally, headed into interesting developments), I'm not going to give up on the character just yet, although I wonder how much of her arc, like Tommy's, is setting her up to be an object lesson that affects the lives of others...
Given that they just did that with Tommy, who was, IMO, one of the weakest characters in the previous season, I'm not sure the writing would be well-served turning that into a formula.
Marik: Sweet.
Gentle Giant: I see what you're saying about the disjointedness. One thing for me is the Lance Family Flashbacks felt a little jerkily inserted into the flow of events.
With shows like this, we saw Oliver Queen first return to Starling City as a killer vigilante, who would not only one-shot, one-kill people shooting at him, but snap the necks of people who knew his secret. Cue fan uproar. And then, he changes. He's hit with a pretty anvilicious in-your-face example of the path he's on, with Helena Bertinelli, who takes his casual disdain for life to the not-entirely-un-logical extreme of killing any cops or civilians who get in her way.And so, he grows. And yet, he doesn't just automatically get it right, just because he's the protagonist and every choice he makes has to be confirmed retroactively by the writing as the right choice. Instead, he goes a bit too far to the other side, swearing an oath to deadTommy that he's not going to kill, only to have that prove an unrealistic swerve in the *other* direction.
In a show not written as well, whatever choice he makes, no matter how over the top, would end up being 'proven' to be right (and, even a *badly* written show, anyone who disagreed with his choices would have their noses rubbed in how terrible wrong they were).
Good analysis and good point. They've even put him in situations where he's ended up killing (such as that one time to protect Felicity) after his oath--and he needs to be challenged like that. It does make the whole journey feel more genuine. If he just had some magical epiphany that just fixed everything it wouldn't work.
Arrow seems quite a bit better written than that, and so, in the case of Laurel, I'm prepared to see her spiral-of-destruction leading *somewhere.* They already smacked down some assumptions about Ollie-as-killer, and, while I don't care for the amount of screen time this particular arc is taking (just as I didn't initially love the flashbacks, or Roy, or all the talking up of Sara, which have, generally, headed into interesting developments), I'm not going to give up on the character just yet, although I wonder how much of her arc, like Tommy's, is setting her up to be an object lesson that affects the lives of others...
I don't know if she is necessarily being set up to be an object lesson to others, although that could be part of it--but I don't think it's going to be in the same way as Tommy.
Kreisberg and Berlanti have said several times they are setting Laurel up for a very long, slow arc toward taking on the mantle of Black Canary. I think what they're doing is utterly breaking her down before she gets built back up (much as happened to Sara in her own way). Laurel is not in a good place and she's not in a likeable place but I think they're setting her up to start on a journey that many episodes, even seasons into this show she's going to be transformed -- whether ultimately for better or worse remains to be seen. But it's going to take awhile for that to happen.
I had a thought about Thea:
Thea knows Moira had an affair with Malcolm, if I recall "State vs. Queen" correctly. Thea was in fact also extra paranoid about Moira and Malcolm getting together last season as well, so it's something that's been on her mind.
Thea can also do math. If she thinks about it, she should figure out that gee, the year she was born was not long after Moira and Malcolm had this affair.
It would find it absolutely fascinating and AWESOME if Thea has quietly already theorized that she is in fact Malcolm's daughter, and hasn't said anything just not to shake things up, as she's decided to forgive her mother and just wants her family to be happy.
And that Moira is doing all this ridiculous skullduggery, and lost Ollie's trust to boot, over effectively nothing as Thea knows.
Sadly, while the writers can surprise me, I don't expect them to pull this sort of irony.
Marik: Sweet.
Gentle Giant: I see what you're saying about the disjointedness. One thing for me is the Lance Family Flashbacks felt a little jerkily inserted into the flow of events.
With shows like this, we saw Oliver Queen first return to Starling City as a killer vigilante, who would not only one-shot, one-kill people shooting at him, but snap the necks of people who knew his secret. Cue fan uproar. And then, he changes. He's hit with a pretty anvilicious in-your-face example of the path he's on, with Helena Bertinelli, who takes his casual disdain for life to the not-entirely-un-logical extreme of killing any cops or civilians who get in her way.And so, he grows. And yet, he doesn't just automatically get it right, just because he's the protagonist and every choice he makes has to be confirmed retroactively by the writing as the right choice. Instead, he goes a bit too far to the other side, swearing an oath to deadTommy that he's not going to kill, only to have that prove an unrealistic swerve in the *other* direction.
In a show not written as well, whatever choice he makes, no matter how over the top, would end up being 'proven' to be right (and, even a *badly* written show, anyone who disagreed with his choices would have their noses rubbed in how terrible wrong they were).
Good analysis and good point. They've even put him in situations where he's ended up killing (such as that one time to protect Felicity) after his oath--and he needs to be challenged like that. It does make the whole journey feel more genuine. If he just had some magical epiphany that just fixed everything it wouldn't work.
...
Arrow seems quite a bit better written than that, and so, in the case of Laurel, I'm prepared to see her spiral-of-destruction leading *somewhere.* They already smacked down some assumptions about Ollie-as-killer, and, while I don't care for the amount of screen time this particular arc is taking (just as I didn't initially love the flashbacks, or Roy,
The writers better be careful because by the time they get around to building her up, no one will care. And if she ends up replacing a better received character like Sara then the backlash will be even bigger. I personally want to see Laurel take her place along side Team Arrow but I'm afraid band wagon hate is going to run her down before she can. I really feel sorry for Katie Cassidy who got stuck being the punching bag of the show. Unfortunately, many people have a tendency to not be able to separate an actor from their character and the dislike transfers over. I've seen her act in other shows (like Supernatural for a season) so I know what she is capable of.
Oh wow, I totally didn't recognize her. I liked her Ruby way more than the next actor they got to replace her...
The second actress to play Ruby is married to Jared Padalecki (Sam Winchester). Personally I felt both actresses brought something to the table.
The writers better be careful because by the time they get around to building her up, no one will care. And if she ends up replacing a better received character like Sara then the backlash will be even bigger.
I am afraid your caution is well placed... that is, that they may make her too disliked to take her anywhere with the viewership. BUT I also think if they make her Black Canary-ish, which they've said is in the plan, it is part of a very slow plan---like, we won't see her like that until season 3 or even 4. And that gives them time to build her up again (which I think is the plan, break her down, build her up). It may back fire, but I think that's where they are going.
I originally expected them to kill Sara and have Laurel take up her mantle to honor her, but I actually hope they do something less unexpected (and they certainly do manage to do the unexpected at times--many people were certain they were going to go a Green Goblin route with Tommy, for example, and that clearly was not the plan). Perhaps Sara will end up training Laurel, for example.
many people were certain they were going to go a Green Goblin route with Tommy, for example, and that clearly was not the plan).
Well unless Daddy Jack manages to get him brought back to life and he's trained by the Assassins.
I like the Laural character arc, myself. But I have seen people with odd reactions to emotional events due to substance abuse. Probably helps I can empathize with the kind of carreer ramifications she is facing. The legal writing is pretty good in this show, anyway, though.
Sorry, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for substance abusing characters, whatever their reasons.
Wait until you know someone close to you with that kind of problem. And given the way the world is, you probably will. You might even right now and not even realize it. Then I hope you review that opinion.
Addiction is a disease. It is a frustrating, horrible, awful, disease. Some people don't make their way through it, and do terrible things to themselves and others. Others crawl through, fight it, and become stronger for it. This requires a mix of personal determination--and an admission that there is a problem and help is needed--and support from others. Some of the strongest, smartest, most amazing people I know are those in addiction recovery. Even though I have also seen other addicts destroy their lives (and others').
In fact, I think I can safely say, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for the kind of person who cannot have empathy or sympathy for those struggling with substance abuse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a self inflicted disease. One could have not started using. It was their choice, they made it.
Precisely. Half my family on my mom's side are drug addicts, living on food stamps because they spend all their cash on meth.
I'm supposed to feel sympathy for that s!*#? Why?
The people who have to live with people like that ARE the ones who know not to give them the time of day, because they'll just drag you down with them.
If they're fighting it? If they actually stay clean, without relapsing? Good on them, you have my support. But I'm supposed to feel sorry for them for their life choices when they KEEP F~+%ING UP ON A DAILY BASIS?
No. I REFUSE. You don't get a pat on the back for doing something (or not doing something in this case) you should have done from the start. Doing something everybody else in the world does is not cause for praise.
I likewise don't feel sorry for someone who chops off their own body parts to see what it feels like, and then complains that they can't function normally. And why should I? They did it to themselves, of their own free will. Nobody forced them to do it.
Laurel looks similar to the girl that I love, I can't hate her
While I can't speak for anyone else, I have certainly found Laurel's arc into addiction to be a bit.....weird. It's been my experience that many children of addicts tend to be careful around addicting things (not saying it's universal by any means, but you would think that she would have a bit more self awareness than that, given that she's been portrayed as the "adult" in the relationship between her and her dad).
With all of that said, my favorite character by far is Felicity. She's certainly grown as the series has progressed, and I
Sorry, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for substance abusing characters, whatever their reasons.Wait until you know someone close to you with that kind of problem. And given the way the world is, you probably will. You might even right now and not even realize it. Then I hope you review that opinion.
Addiction is a disease. It is a frustrating, horrible, awful, disease. Some people don't make their way through it, and do terrible things to themselves and others. Others crawl through, fight it, and become stronger for it. This requires a mix of personal determination--and an admission that there is a problem and help is needed--and support from others. Some of the strongest, smartest, most amazing people I know are those in addiction recovery. Even though I have also seen other addicts destroy their lives (and others').
In fact, I think I can safely say, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for the kind of person who cannot have empathy or sympathy for those struggling with substance abuse.
one of my teachers told me that a good rule of thumb for talking to someone about their addiction is to think about what you would say about/to someone with cancer. both are diseases, both are linked to the brain, and both are heavily influenced by genetic and environmental factors.
|
one of my teachers told me that a good rule of thumb for talking to someone about their addiction is to think about what you would say about/to someone with cancer. both are diseases, both are linked to the brain, and both are heavily influenced by genetic and environmental factors.Sorry, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for substance abusing characters, whatever their reasons.Wait until you know someone close to you with that kind of problem. And given the way the world is, you probably will. You might even right now and not even realize it. Then I hope you review that opinion.
Addiction is a disease. It is a frustrating, horrible, awful, disease. Some people don't make their way through it, and do terrible things to themselves and others. Others crawl through, fight it, and become stronger for it. This requires a mix of personal determination--and an admission that there is a problem and help is needed--and support from others. Some of the strongest, smartest, most amazing people I know are those in addiction recovery. Even though I have also seen other addicts destroy their lives (and others').
In fact, I think I can safely say, I cannot have any sort of empathy or sympathy for the kind of person who cannot have empathy or sympathy for those struggling with substance abuse.
Except that a person doesn't choose to get cancer.
A drug/alcohol/tobacco addict chooses to get addicted. Never compare the two. They are not even close.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that a person doesn't choose to get cancer.
A drug/alcohol/tobacco addict chooses to get addicted. Never compare the two. They are not even close.
No one "chooses" to get addicted. While people do choose to make poor choices, addiction isn't a choice, like choosing a color or a song to listen to. As I said above, there are a combination of factors that play into addiction, including brain chemistry and genetics.
After all, it's not like someone can just "choose" to play at the level of professional athletes; it requires discipline and hard work. Same rule applies with people who are predisposed to addition: discipline and hard work.
The series has, of course, been renewed for a third season.
While some of you might have close experiences with addicts, it's also sadly clear that some of you don't understand the very nature of addiction. How you deal with that in your own life is, of course, up to you. But basing one's distaste/dislike/hatred of a fictional character on personal experience isn't always rational.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But basing one's distaste/dislike/hatred of a fictional character on personal experience isn't always rational.
Now you're asking gamers to be rational? What's next? communal dice pools? where will it end? =D
While I dunno about laurel (I don't hate or love her; I'm actually indifferent to her), I stand by my statement that her fall into drug use feels...odd. definitely within the bounds of reality, of course, but seriously, she should know better. Another thing that's odd about that whole thing is that she was stealing pills from her father, who as an alcoholic shouldn't have been on anything addictive, which means that his doctor might be getting sued (or probably would be in the real world, at any rate).
It also makes me chuckle that the actor who plays her dad, Paul Blackthorne, also played Harry Dresden.
|
|
Except that a person doesn't choose to get cancer.
A drug/alcohol/tobacco addict chooses to get addicted. Never compare the two. They are not even close.No one "chooses" to get addicted. While people do choose to make poor choices, addiction isn't a choice, like choosing a color or a song to listen to. As I said above, there are a combination of factors that play into addiction, including brain chemistry and genetics.
After all, it's not like someone can just "choose" to play at the level of professional athletes; it requires discipline and hard work. Same rule applies with people who are predisposed to addition: discipline and hard work.
Sorry, a person CHOOSES to take drugs, knowing full well the consequences. I feel no pity, no sympathy for such people.
Judging by my family history, I am very predisposed to be an alcoholic junkie. Am I? No. Why? Because I don't use or drink. They also had a choice of not doing so. And they chose to do it.|
|
With all of that said, my favorite character by far is Felicity. She's certainly grown as the series has progressed, and I ** spoiler omitted **
She seems to be vying for the place in my heart that Chloe Sullivan stole, back in Smallville (although that's an unfair comparison, because I didn't much like Smallville...).
I do like what you mention in your spoiled bit. It seemed like the plot of the week for Smallville was that somebody knew something, and waited to tell anyone until it was too late. (Or clenched their jaw and said 'I won't let that happen!' and then promptly did nothing about it for 20 episodes until it inevitably happen anyway.) It was pretty formulaic, and made everyone look like a colossal numbskull.
With Felicity, it was less, 'Oh, I knew that. I probably should have said something before it blew up in our faces...' and a hair closer to, 'I'm not a republic serial villain, Dan. I did it 30 minutes ago.' Whatever naivette the character started out with seems to have evaporated with the kidnapping of Walter.
I like that, more and more, characters in this show are making more or less reasonable or, at least, *understandable,* decisions, and not just grabbing onto the Idiot Ball with both hands to further the plot (which was occasionally an issue for Thea or Roy). It makes all of them, good, bad, confused, a bit more relatable and, in some cases, admirable.
(About the only thing I don't love about Felicity is the terribly awkward things she keeps saying to Oliver. I think it could be hilarious if she did say some awkwardly Freudian things, but the actual lines chosen just seem way over the top...)
(About the only thing I don't love about Felicity is the terribly awkward things she keeps saying to Oliver. I think it could be hilarious if she did say some awkwardly Freudian things, but the actual lines chosen just seem way over the top...)
It's my hope that this season she just tells Ollie how she feels and then deals with the fallout (the more I think about it though, the more I think she just wants to have sex with him. I think he scares her a little bit).
|
|
It's my hope that this season she just tells Ollie how she feels and then deals with the fallout (the more I think about it though, the more I think she just wants to have sex with him. I think he scares her a little bit).
IIRC, that got covered in the episode where he hooked up with the character-I-don't-remember-played-by-Summer-Glau.
And I'm sure he scares her. The only women he doesn't scare (Helena, Sara, Terminator/River/chick) are themselves legitimately scary. :)
you forgot to add laurel to that list. she's definitely scary, if if nothing else then for her naivete.
I don't like the idea of Oliver and Felicity hooking up. They need to stay friends and that's it. Set brought up Smallville which had the exact same dynamic: people wanted Clark to drop Lana for Chloe. I'm glad the writers resisted that trap and I hope they don't get pressured by what I feel are short sighted fans to do that in this show. I thought Felicity and Barry Allan had real romantic chemistry. What she has with Oliver is a deep friendship/crush.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Quaker on Laurel. It seems obvious that Laurel is getting beaten down so she can be built back up in a different way. This is a origin story for all of these characters, and while given that it focuses on Oliver it has to start with him in a more or less roughed out form, beginning with Laurel on the outside gives us a chance to see growth from start to end.
That said, I can't say that I really like Laurel as a character. I find her sort of boring and feel like her arc is taking too long to come to fruition given the fast pace of the rest of the show. I also don't really like or understand Oliver's interest in her romantically - but I am among those that see Felicity as a better match (though if it ever did happen it would almost certainly be a short gimmick that blew up).
I'm similarly skeptical of Oliver & Sarah's instant passion and flame, but I suppose it adds drama. No doubt it will blow up (and likely end with Sarah dying).
I thought introducing Nyssa was good from a character perspective, but all of her scenes with Sarah lacked anything approaching chemistry from an acting perspective. I wasn't ever sold on the idea that either was interested in the other. That said, her action scenes were pretty cool, especially at the airport and her little appearance in front of Oliver the first time.
I like the idea that Thea could become a larger force in the show. Of the side cast I feel like she's had the most growth. I sort of hope they go with Roy in a super-strength sort of direction and let her in as Speedy (in a Mia Dearden way).
No one "chooses" to get addicted. While people do choose to make poor choices, addiction isn't a choice, like choosing a color or a song to listen to. As I said above, there are a combination of factors that play into addiction, including brain chemistry and genetics.
After all, it's not like someone can just "choose" to play at the level of professional athletes; it requires discipline and hard work. Same rule applies with people who are predisposed to addition: discipline and hard work.
We are off topic, but to chime in.
I have a genetic predisposition towards alcohol abuse. I make the logical decision that I shouldn't drink. While I can accept that there are aspects of addiction that are beyond one's control, I am in no way going to muster the same level of sympathy for someone that develops an addiction as a result of their choice as I will for someone who develops a potentially terminal illness completely beyond their control.
and you're just reaffirming my original point. I dunno why Laurel would start drinking, given that she had some (I think) bad experiences with her dad drinking.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and you're just reaffirming my original point. I dunno why Laurel would start drinking, given that she had some (I think) bad experiences with her dad drinking.
If everyone learned from their parents / friends / etc. mistakes, then nobody, in the world, would ever drink, smoke, shoot up, drive while texting, have unprotected sex, ride a motorcycle, etc.
It's hardly unrealistic that someone with an addiction problem would fall into an addictive pattern, despite knowing that a parent had a similar problem.
It only happens every day, millions of times, after all!
Indeed, it can even serve as an excuse, if the person relapsing is convincing themselves that it's not an actual choice they can make or fight they can win, but is 100% genetic or inevitable or whatever, part of their character or physiology that they might as well just accept, since it's not curable.
And just because one person has beaten a problem (such as myself, avoiding the alcoholism that took my dad out of circulation for 30 years), doesn't mean that their experiences means that 'I did it, so it's totally easy! Everyone else must be weak and pathetic!' It just means 'I did it. Yay me. Fingers crossed that I can keep on doing it.'
As we learned in Psych 101, attempting to hold others to the standards we have set for ourselves, is a sign of sociopathy, or, worse, solipsism. (It's also bad for the self-esteem, because you're belittling and selling short your own accomplishment, by saying, 'Well, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and if they fail, they must suck and be deserving of contempt!' instead of saying, 'Hey! I did it! I have the strength to beat this!')
It's also setting up for a big fall. Having contempt for others failing at a task you've accomplished robs you of the *power* and self-worth necessary to fight a problem when it arises, because, logically, if people who fail are weak and pathetic, then, if *you* drink too much one night, and realize you've crossed a line, suddenly all that 'weak and pathetic' judgment comes right back to bite you, as you end up holding yourself in contempt. (Barring a psychotic-break level of cognitive dissonance, where it's totally okay for you to get smashed, but when other potential alcoholics tip back a bottle, they are being all unworthy of compassion and stuff...)
And self-loathing is not your friend, when trying to pick yourself up out of anything.
Taking your own power to control your life and choices, and throwing it away like that (by claiming 'anyone can do it!') is never a great plan.
|
I have a genetic predisposition towards alcohol abuse. I make the logical decision that I shouldn't drink. While I can accept that there are aspects of addiction that are beyond one's control, I am in no way going to muster the same level of sympathy for someone that develops an addiction as a result of their choice as I will for someone who develops a potentially terminal illness completely beyond their control.
I congratulate you on a wise choice. I find myself comparing it to Angelina Jolie's recent well-publicized mastectomy decision after learning about her high probably of getting breast cancer after a test revealed her genetic disposition.
And yet millions of other women will get breast cancer, because they can't afford the test she got or simply don't think to have themselves tested, and are thus unaware of the predisposition. Likewise, lots of alcoholics have no idea going in that they are more likely than the general population to develop dependence.
It's also worth noting that Laurel's not exactly a teetotaler, and has for years been drinking without addiction. Her recent decline is self-medication for depression and survivor's guilt; she has never before had a reason to think herself inclined toward dependence.
|
|
And yet millions of other women will get breast cancer, because they can't afford the test she got or simply don't think to have themselves tested, and are thus unaware of the predisposition. Likewise, lots of alcoholics have no idea going in that they are more likely than the general population to develop dependence.
Couldn't care less. They can choose not to get smashed every day. You don't become an alcoholic overnight.
actually, it's not as clearcut as you might think. There are people who have become alcoholics or drug addicts after using just once.
As we learned in Psych 101, attempting to hold others to the standards we have set for ourselves, is a sign of sociopathy, or, worse, solipsism. (It's also bad for the self-esteem, because you're belittling and selling short your own accomplishment, by saying, 'Well, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and if they fail, they must suck and be deserving of contempt!' instead of saying, 'Hey! I did it! I have the strength to beat this!')
I've never held much with Psych 101 analyses. This bit is not by any means universal.
It's not an "accomplishment" to not abuse a substance, just like it's not an "accomplishment" to not murder, rape, and steal.
It's just being a normal, intelligent, and functional human being.