Are you a TV Fanatic?
Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive personalized television news for free!
I want to talk about the notion fo being "Out of Character." It is an accusation that is made with much frequency. But how much force does it have? Surely characters can do new stuff that they haven't done before. Also good people can have hitherto unseen bad sides and bad people can have a good side. So when is this charge legitimate? In my view it is only legitimate when someone does so outrageously opposed to what has been seen so far that it could never ever possibly happen. So, for example, Blair deciding to dance at a strip club (espeically if drunk) would not be OOC for me. But Serena hiring a hitman would. Lilly breaking her marriage vows with another man would not be OOC for me, but it would if the other man was Nate (but it wouldn't be OOc for Nate as he sleeps with women in that age range). YMMV, but still think that it was OOC for Chuck to send Blair to Jack for the Empire but Chenny was not. I just think that the phrase is used too liberally whenever a character behaves even slightly against what we would want or expect and then we invoke it as criticism against the writing. But if it is to have any real force then has to be used more sparingly for cases which truly are almost unbelievale of their characters rather than just merely unusual.
It's legitimate when the characters do things you know they would never do normally (pretty much everything that happened last episode plus blair becoming a religious zealot, etc etc. there are too many things to name lately that are blatantly OOC) This ruins the show because it's fun to watch characters and see what happens between them, but when they're just empty characters that don't have consistent personalities, it ruins the show. The writers' job is to write interesting episodes involving the characters on the show, and keep them in character! They have failed magnificently lately, which has made GG, like Georgina said, a shell of its former self.
blair actually is the only character that has been OOC for a while.
Oh, the thin line between character development and downright failed writing....
It is quite simple: if the character did it, while it may be uncharacteristic of them, it is not out of character.
I don't really think the whole notion of "Out of Character" should apply to fictional characters.
I agree it can be hard to decide whats OOc and whats not , however tweets like these further complicate the issue
@GGWriters We're all having hard time getting Blair this season. At times it doesn't even feel like Blair. Are we supposed to feel this?8 Feb Gossip Girl Writers@GGWriters
@lexieflavor Yes. Absolutely.
That's ridiculous. just because they're fictional characters doesn't mean that anything they do is in character just because they do it. When this show had good writers, they introduced and developed all of the characters on this show, so that we know the kind of person each character is. When they start doing things that we know they'd never ever do, and when we're just wondering wth is going on and why everyone's doing what they're doing, the extremely lazy writing is a huge detriment to the show. Saying that there is no such thing as OOC is just wrong. In the next episode, if dan had sex with prostitutes and got his nails done, you wouldn't question it just because he's doing it?? (haha just trying to think of random things I can't see dan doing) What if serena decided she was a lesbian and moved to LA with her new girlfriend? Or blair decided not to be with someone because of a pact? (oh wait, that happened!!)
Being OOC is definitely a real thing, and the more the writers do it, the worse the show becomes. Without its characters, GG is completely mindless nonsense. It's just people with no consistent personalities/motivations/etc running around and doing random things. How entertaining.