Gossip Girl > Gossip Girl Round Table: "Crazy Cupid Love" > Comments Page 2
@Anonymous I was going to make a similar statement as you did regarding Chuck and Lily. I think Chuck should leave Blair alone for now and focus on other things. He and Serena should move back with Lily and spend time with family. I think being closer to Lily and Serena would do more good for chuck's progression, instead of worrying about Blair (because she's obviously confused). I just love the scenes between Chuck and Lily, and I miss those adorable scenes between him and Serena in Seasons 1 and 2.
@Ace Josh Safran is an incompetent hack, you can tell by the way he immaturely behaves in interviews/previews, it's pathetic.
@pty I love it, we share the same opinions on the show, even though we don't agree on the shipping preferences.
@Ace Gossip Girl feels way more cartoonish than Gargoyles.
@ALF Exactly, they should've developed the characters, not repeat the on/ff crap ad nauseum.
@junior It's not about plausibility, these writing is terrible, these characters are getting ruined with horrible writing/characterizations.
@momo1983 Chuck should move on, Blair's not worth it, she needs to grow up. The Lily/Chuck bonding scenes are much better than the melodramatic bs that comes up every time Blair makes some stupid excuse.
I am a dair fan but the kiss was okay not passionate and i swear leighton only kisses penn like closed mouth but ed and her basically F*** with there mouths it look like they want each other IDK.. but the dair kiss was not epic just nice and simple just like dan
Most definitely checkout Gargoyles. The entire series is on YT. Fair warning, it is a cartoon, but don't let that dissway you. It's just as rich and vibrant as any other well-written live action show.
HIGH FIVE! Good luck! The CPA is a monster. I have no aspirations to take it since I'm not interested in public/forensic accounting. My MSA/CPT is just as good for internal support since my field is primarily in treasury.
The good thing about it is that you take it in sections and you'll only need to retake that particular section.
For the record, I actually thought Chuck's redemptive arc was going in okay direction (relative to this show) for the 1st few eps. this season. Then it became all. about. Blair. They had an opportunity to explore Chuck's background and motivations, not just "improve" him for a relationship. I don't even want to get started on what they've reduced Blair to...@Momo, @Anonymous Season 3 really is where it all goes bananas, right? College ROCKS! Instead of capitalizing on that, they aged the characters and made them increasingly inane. Sadly S3/S4 are downright Shakespearen compared to S5. Aye, I have to stop thinking about this show! I'm just so unreasonably happy there's been nary a mention of Chair v. Dair.
Anyway, @Ace, I'll have to check out gargoyles. I like anti-hero protagonists though they do have to be written with care. The writers can't keep hitting the reset button (House MD, anyone?) to excuse bad behavior because the actions become too repetitive and as @Anonymous mentioned, the next time they "change" its cheapened more and more. The foundation must be laid over the course of the series, not just lazily tacked on in one episode, only to be reversed in the next. All Chuck does is flip flop between "good" and "bad". They've done this with all the characters, really, by allowing them to only inhabit one category or the other when the best written characters occupy the grey area. I mean, damn, someone can be a caustic playboy and be an otherwise decent human being.
@ACE- HIGH FIVE! There's such a misconception as to what our profession entails. As you much mentioned, one must have excellent verbal/written communication skills. BTW I finish my MAcct in April and then I'm off to tackle the CPA. Send good vibes! lol. @Junior- I'm female but that's neither here nor there. I too am psyched that a genuine, non-ship discussion is going on. I'm also fascinated how one's profession influences how they experience the show. Ace and I work in an almost purely analytical field- I apply the cause->effect, transactional analysis model even to GG. Meanwhile @junior is approaching the show from the standpoint of, I gather, a clinical psychologist so he/she considers the character's motivations perhaps less rigidly. I know, off-topic but fun to ponder...
@ACE Every profession has jargon. It's refreshing to have a real argumentation and not all those "epic" "meant to be" "passion", etc. It's a tv show and has his own construction in the narration. We accept things or facts we know are not possible or plausible. It's an unconscious contract we made.
Chuck is the one out of all the characters with a pretty horrible upbringing, which is why I'm really not shocked or surprised when he reverts back from time to time to his old self. With years of abandonment issues from those closest to him, I believe it would take some time before anyone could learn to let their guard down. And with the way Blair's been going back and forth and toying with Chuck's heart (when he finally makes progress) I wouldn't be shocked if he relapses.
Don't get me wrong I'm a chair fan and have been since day one, but at this time I would rather Chuck leave Blair alone (until she gets her brain back). She's been making excuses since season 4. At first I bought it; but now I don't, they are just excuses). Chuck has accepted her from the beginning until now (even during her flakiness. If she's still holding against him the things he's done in the past then she needs to leave him alone and stop playing with his heart.
1 + 1 = 1.
It's an "epic endgame" for viewers. Chuck in other hand doesn't know what's next.
When you are on the path you don't see the beginning and the end. It's like in therapy. The therapist sees the problem but not the patient. The cure comes from the "discoveries" that the patient makes. It's like Blair's realization about how Dan was wonderful.
Usually, something that is epic doesn't require self-acknowledgement that it IS epic. The fact that Safran and team constantly pat their own backs with such "epic"ness speaks volumes.
You got it right on the proverbially "epic" nose!
"Hello, I'm Epic. Hello?! I'm EPIC. YES ME! Recognize it as such" -gets 'epic bat'- "I'M EPIC! I'M EPIC, ME ME ME EPIC." -starts beating the fandom- "I'm EPIC!"
I imagine that's the kind of carthoonish visualization that goes through Safran's mind when he and co. attempts to convince the audience that Chair is so meant to be.
A flowing conversation that doesn't destablize into a ship-war of Team Dair vs Team Chair is never exhausting. It's refreshing to have a conversation, regardless of POV, and meeting somewhere in the middle.
And yes, lol, the irony is a bit comedic, yet you'd be surprised how much prose is required in communicating those numbers to facets of an organization not privvy to the tecnical language of accounting and finance.
@junior Gossip Girl and logical just don't go well together in a sentence.
If it's an 'epic endgame' then Chuck doesn't need to be insecure about it, the writers will force them together in a contrived way at the end.
@momo83 Exactly, in Season 3, the writers pretty much ruined every character/relationship and everything went downhill from then on.
@anonymous. We must add the point of view of the observer. We watch from a distance. Chuck knows that Blair found something with Dan. He's afraid of being "incomplete". He said to her "isn't it something Humphrey can help you with ? " and then remember he says to Dan " watching some french movies that nobody hearts of (...)". What does Blair do with Dan ? Chuck is aware that he can't provide Blair in that department. By the way, a crowd doesn't respond to a logical speech. We are a crowd here.
It feels as if I'm watching a different show now. I understand in season 1 and 2 they were in high school, but I don't think it was necessary to change the whole concept of the show in order for them to grow up. I use to love the parties, the darkness, the comedy, sex and edge. Now it feels like I'm watching a sappy soap opera or a romantic comedy. Couldn't the writers have placed all the characters in the same college in NY? They could have made some great storylines with that. The parties would have been bigger, but still youthful. The characters could have other pratical love interests, instead of rotating with one another. The royal family storyline, really? The characters are still young, yet everytime I watch this show now I forget they are (the reason being these ridiculous storylines). The writers definitely made a wrong turn after season 2 and there is no way of cleaning it up.
@junior He also constantly reverts back to his old self, constantly brooding/pining over Blair and being involved with unnecessary drama over and over again. Why would he be threatened by Dan if he and Blair are 'epic endgame' like fans like to spew out?
@Ace Gargoyles is a much better written show with actual developed characters.
With Gossip Girl, the writers just throw contrived problems at him that's quickly resolved with little to no effects on Chuck or his character, there's no development, it's constantly regressing with repetitive relationship drama. It's as if the writers are constantly beating us over the head and yelling: "Feel sorry for him" instead of actually developing or redeeming his characters instead of trying to ruin other characters to make his character look better by comparison.
@Ace and Alf A lot of words for men who do numbers as a living. You must be exhausted after this talk. The repetition of the events makes the symptom (clinic psychology). So Chuck choose the easy path. He choose the way he knows better. He fight ghosts (mother and father). He evaluates where he stands by being in competition. He has abandon issue. He sees Dair as defection from Blair.
I think had Chuck been managed carefully from the writer's aspect, his evolution to be this good guy would have had more gravitas than it has now.
If you ever watch Gargoyles, and before you gawk, I highly recommend it for its great story and interesting, believable, and consistent character development (but skip the Goliath Chronicles because that's an entirely different staff) I could see Chuck evolve the way Xanatos did.
The writers that developed Xanatos took the audience into a very believable and multi-layered process that wasn't so cerebral that made Xanatos into a redemptive character despite his villany in the beginning.
HA! I'm an accountant too! Small world, huh?
@ALF It's because that Chuck never evolves that every time someone claims that he's 'changed', some people don't buy it.
Gossip Girl should never be compared to better source material, it's not even in the same league.
People have a right to get angry about the show and why they want to drop it, regardless of what the CW shills or the fantards think otherwise.
Yea, I can't believe people are being yelled at for saying they're tired of the show! Though right as I'm about to stop participating because of the general nastiness, a thoughtful discussion occurs! @Ace and @Nelly thanks for your insights and reminding this viewer why I did like Chair, Dair and the show. I think we're over-intellectualizing GG, though. As it's been pointed out, literary allusions are dandy, but they're not executed well (but my degrees are in accountancy, wtf do I know? lol). The inconsistent characterization is an inevitable downside of a plot driven series. Since the conflict arises from shock devices and not internally from the characters, Chuck (for example) will NEVER evolve. The writer's would have to change their entire approach.
People should leave, if they're being bullied because they want to stop watching, it's not worth it.
You are posting as a guest. To post as a user, please Login or Register.
Remember My Info