Reply to PostOkay so, Chuck.
-
ship wars and all my dislike for Chuck as a character on the show aside,
I don't get how people are actually shocked/surprised with this episode, saying how the writers "destroyed" his character.
In my personal opinion Chuck's characterisation is the one that's 'making sense'.
He aimed to be like his father, now found out everything his father stood for was a lie.
Of course he is crushed. I am beyond annoyed with him but it makes sense.
He grew up in a world of materialism, where money got him everything, of course he would talk of Blair as a possession.
And that he actually went and forced himself on her and aimed to slap her?
Anyone remember this:
I feel like people forget this moment far too often.
I expected him to hit her then already. See the look on her face? She's actually scared.
So all this bullcrap about this being out of character/the writers destroying him really annoys me.
This is who he is.
This is who he has always been. Rewatch the Pilot please. Two rape attempts.
HE HAS ALWAYS HAD THIS SIDE TO HIM.
YOU JUST CHOSE TO SEE LOST PUPPY CHUCK.
//rant over
Posted 5/3/2011 3:14:10 PM # -
No, M, I agree. Chuck makes sense. What doesn't is that he is far too often sold to the viewers as a romantic lead. I think he makes a good villain. I don't think he makes a good boyfriend (or even a bad boyfriend). Imagine Joker from Batman as a romantic lead. Joker was insane and he was evil, and I'm sure there were reasons for it. But he was never a romantic lead.
Posted 5/3/2011 7:11:26 PM # -
i love you and everything you choose to be
Posted 5/3/2011 8:46:04 PM # -
Posted 5/6/2011 9:43:20 AM # -
Chuck makes sense. What doesn't is that he is far too often sold to the viewers as a romantic lead.
I think he makes a good villain. I don't think he makes a good boyfriend (or even a bad boyfriend). Imagine Joker from Batman as a romantic lead. Joker was insane and he was evil, and I'm sure there were reasons for it. But he was never a romantic lead.
This. What also doesn't make sense is that they sell his actions as "loving", "romantic" and "passionate", telling us "No, he didn't want to hurt her. It wasn't abuse."
Posted 5/6/2011 9:53:23 AM # -
I might be in minority among my Chair lovers, but I really do agree with this so much.
I personally, never treated Chuck as the romantic lead, and selling them as such is whats causing so much backlash. Everything he has done so far it makes sense for the person he is, a villain.
I wont get into any arguements or debates here why I continue shipping Chair, but I just wanted to point out that I truly agree with OP.
Posted 5/6/2011 9:54:57 AM # -
I totally agree. The writers haven't really destroyed Chuck, honestly, they are the most faithful to this character, and I actually find his story interesting. He was a bad boy who only cared about money, sex, and excess, falls in love, doesn't know how to love, his father gets killed, he decides to turn his life around, and then now he's going into a darker and darker place. I think this is what GG is supposed to be about, about these teenagers leading these lives and how money, fame and legacy affect who they are and their choices.
IMO, he has the best storyline in the show. Even his current status with Blair is interesting. He's an ass, but that's how the writers really want to portray him. We shouldn't hate on them just because he isn't what we want him to be.
Thanks for pointing this out M and She was a daydreamer:D
Posted 5/6/2011 9:56:00 AM # -
I totally agrre, that is what's wrong QueenBeeTheGreat. I think they should own up to what they're doing, it's a great SL. But they shouldn't twist it into something that it's not. If they want CB to happen, then work on a Chuck redemption, but don't pretend like last week's episode won't have any affect on their relationship.
Posted 5/6/2011 9:58:28 AM # -
I totally agree. The writers haven't really destroyed Chuck, honestly, they are the most faithful to this character, and I actually find his story interesting. He was a bad boy who only cared about money, sex, and excess, falls in love, doesn't know how to love, his father gets killed, he decides to turn his life around, and then now he's going into a darker and darker place. I think this is what GG is supposed to be about, about these teenagers leading these lives and how money, fame and legacy affect who they are and their choices.
IMO, he has the best storyline in the show. Even his current status with Blair is interesting. He's an ass, but that's how the writers really want to portray him. We shouldn't hate on them just because he isn't what we want him to be.
Thanks for pointing this out M and She was a daydreamer:D
Everything you just said. Chuck has been the most consistent of all, and very much true to himself, even when he was doing the most awful shit ever. I think the writers have done a nice job in exposing every layer of his personality, whether good or bad. That much I think everyone can agree on.
Posted 5/6/2011 9:59:51 AM # -
I totally agree. The writers haven't really destroyed Chuck, honestly, they are the most faithful to this character, and I actually find his story interesting. He was a bad boy who only cared about money, sex, and excess, falls in love, doesn't know how to love, his father gets killed, he decides to turn his life around, and then now he's going into a darker and darker place. I think this is what GG is supposed to be about, about these teenagers leading these lives and how money, fame and legacy affect who they are and their choices.
IMO, he has the best storyline in the show. Even his current status with Blair is interesting. He's an ass, but that's how the writers really want to portray him. We shouldn't hate on them just because he isn't what we want him to be.
^^^Nothing more to add reallyPosted 5/6/2011 10:00:23 AM #
Guest posting is disabled. Click here to login. Click here to register.
Blair: You say I always bet against you. Not this time. I'm all in.
