|
|
Post by Sadrick on Nov 15, 2015 4:50:29 GMT -5
Most of the various enemies encountered by the sisters seemed to be your average run-of-the-mill bad guys with few defining personality traits that set them apart from each other. They hurt, they terrorise, they kill... All of which is committed for little justification other than "I'm evil, that's why". My question has to do with whether there's ever been a villain with depth added to their psyche or perhaps one whose actions don't necessarily tow the conventional lines of good and evil. I'm looking for the kind of villain that makes you question if they're entirely a bad guy or if they're even one in the first place. Someone who might fit into a grey area when it comes to morality.
|
|
|
|
Post by adzpower on Nov 15, 2015 11:40:32 GMT -5
Cole?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 12:13:52 GMT -5
Arguably Cole and Gideon, although one would be forgiven for thinking that Gideon was more mentally unstable than ambiguous. Also Chris, whilst not exactly a villain, wasn't exactly 'Good' to begin with either so was more of an anti-hero, probably because of the world he came from where 'Good' and 'Evil' no longer have significance. If you believe that like I do, I guess you could deem Dark Wyatt as 'ambiguous' as well, although he is portrayed in a stock 'baddie' way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 12:32:33 GMT -5
I'm afraid it's that elephant in the room again, the 1950's style writing.
Rex and Hannah, for example, got the short end of the stick here. It was only until their final two episodes that they really stepped forward, and even then they got screwed by that 1950's era approach. Rex had NO reason to kill the sisters at the end of Wicca Envy, he had their powers, he'd already won. This whole kill them anyway bit was like a black hatted, mustache twirling villain straight out of the era when Eisenhower was in the White House.
Thankfully, when I got my hands on Rex and Hannah, I treated them like characters written for the Millennial generation, not the Baby Boomer one. Thanks to me, they're no longer the two dimensional characters they were on Charmed.
As I have said, this might be one of the reasons that Charmed has had no staying power with fandom like Buffy and Angel has. Charmed suffered from Spelling and Vincent imposing their 1950's values and ideals on the show, but not realizing that the world had long since moved on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 13:17:11 GMT -5
I'm afraid it's that elephant in the room again, the 1950's style writing. Rex and Hannah, for example, got the short end of the stick here. It was only until their final two episodes that they really stepped forward, and even then they got screwed by that 1950's era approach. Rex had NO reason to kill the sisters at the end of Wicca Envy, he had their powers, he'd already won. This whole kill them anyway bit was like a black hatted, mustache twirling villain straight out of the era when Eisenhower was in the White House. Thankfully, when I got my hands on Rex and Hannah, I treated them like characters written for the Millennial generation, not the Baby Boomer one. Thanks to me, they're no longer the two dimensional characters they were on Charmed. As I have said, this might be one of the reasons that Charmed has had no staying power with fandom like Buffy and Angel has. Charmed suffered from Spelling and Vincent imposing their 1950's values and ideals on the show, but not realizing that the world had long since moved on. Indeed. In fact it just got steadily worse as the series progressed, especially with Phoebe, who went from a feisty, independent young woman who was caring, friendly and liked helping people to a sex-crazed narcissist who couldn't function until she found a husband and got pregnant. Similarly, Piper and Leo's marriage descended into a slightly updated version of Bewitched, with Leo the 'Yes, dear' husband vanishing off and doing his own thing, whilst avoiding his shrill housewife, Piper. I guess Phoebe and Cole was a rehashing of the old Forbidden Love trope, as was Piper and Leo, but I think they managed to make them interesting and unique - until they married. In regards to the Baddies, I actually now think the Avatars and Billie/Christy were the most ambiguous villains, it's just a pity that those storylines weren't brilliantly written/executed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 17:51:01 GMT -5
Especially in the case of Christy. She was beyond all hope? Rubbish. As I said, they could have bound her powers, and that would give them the time needed to deprogram her.
I bet if Joss Whedon or Eric Kripke (both born of Generation X) were in charge, that is exactly what would have happened. They knew how to write for the modern world.
Look at Crowley, the King Of Hell. Yes, he's a bad guy who has done bad things. However, he has worked with the Winchester boys on numerous occasions. So Crowley, while technically a villain, has a shade of gray about him.
The big difference, the people running Supernatural write like it's 2015, not 1955.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sadrick on Nov 16, 2015 7:10:57 GMT -5
I agree with you guys. The Charmed series, by and large, has a very black and white perception of morality. For the main characters, there seems to be no middle or grey area. Some of their enemies weren't even malevolent, they just had a distorted moral compass that was engendered by either indoctrination or paranoia. For example, if you put his actions aside for the moment and look beneath the surface at the reasoning behind Gideon's desperation to kill Wyatt, you would find that his motives do bring up some valid questions with regards to power and corruption which the sisters just brazenly ignored instead of trying to understand. Gideon by himself isn't an evil man, yes some of his choice decisions like conspiring with demons and using violence to redirect the sisters' attention away aren't exactly the actions of a righteous person, but it was his mania over the potential danger posed by Wyatt's highly developed abilities that compelled him to act. Then with Christie, you have her entire worldview being skewed by the Triad for their own nefarious aims. In spite of what the Charmed Ones might argue to the contrary, they are selfish egotistical beings. That part of Christie's speech about them wasn't inaccurate.
Cole seems like the most obvious example. You know his original intentions for going after the sisters was to rescue his father's soul from an eternity of damnation with evil beings? If a person truly was incapable of feeling any kind of positive emotion, they wouldn't be putting themselves in danger and sacrificing so much time and resources just for one lowly man. That doesn't vindicate Cole of his crimes from the past 100 years or what he did to the sisters, but I do wish they could have tried to understand that the circumstances of their battle weren't so clear-cut as evil sending yet another agent out to kill them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 14:00:42 GMT -5
Especially in the case of Christy. She was beyond all hope? Rubbish. As I said, they could have bound her powers, and that would give them the time needed to deprogram her. I bet if Joss Whedon or Eric Kripke (both born of Generation X) were in charge, that is exactly what would have happened. They knew how to write for the modern world. Look at Crowley, the King Of Hell. Yes, he's a bad guy who has done bad things. However, he has worked with the Winchester boys on numerous occasions. So Crowley, while technically a villain, has a shade of gray about him. The big difference, the people running Supernatural write like it's 2015, not 1955. Definitely. Whedon did such a good job with Buffy, basically no character was portrayed as wholly bad or wholly good, unlike Charmed in which the increasingly self-centred, reckless sisters were portrayed as little angels. You're so right, I would've ended the Billie/Christy plot with a power bind/strip. Billie could've easily extinguish/redirected her fireball, instead of murdering her. |
|
|
|
Post by Melinda Halliwell on Nov 16, 2015 14:50:51 GMT -5
You're so right, I would've ended the Billie/Christy plot with a power bind/strip. Billie could've easily extinguish/redirected her fireball, instead of murdering her. But then the show wouldn't have gone for another year had that happened would it? The channel was changing to become the CW and the execs needed a show to fulfill a time slot 'cause they couldn't get anything else which Charmed took provided it had a year round plot it could do hence the Billie/Christy storyline. Yes binding her powers was the sensible option but then the writers had nothing else to use afterwards been why things panned out the way they did which if they'd sat down and thought of seriously would've made the season more likeable obviously say if the real big bad had turned out to be the sisters for instance and not Christy the ultimate innocent who was right about the Charmed Ones being evil for neglecting their duties and the bad things they done before like killing Rick for e.g. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 15:36:45 GMT -5
The channel was changing to become the CW and the execs needed a show to fulfill a time slot 'cause they couldn't get anything else which Charmed took provided it had a year round plot it could do hence the Billie/Christy storyline. Actually, the CW didn't have anything to do with why Charmed was renewed for Season 8. Almost all of the WB's new shows bombed in the 2004-05 season, so despite the show's ratings collapsing in Season 7, the network had nothing to fill Charmed's old timeslot with. Thus, the WB renewed the show with a lobotomized budget and mandated that Charmed try to set up a potential spinoff (aka. Billie). The CW wasn't announced until January 2006, and that was the final nail in the coffin for Charmed. Despite being owned by the same parent company (CBS), the CW had little interest in the show. Combined with the leads' contracts all ending with Season 8, Kaley Cuoco's disinterest in doing a spinoff, and Aaron Spelling's death, that pretty much killed the chances of Season 9 or a spinoff ever being greenlit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 17:23:18 GMT -5
Same with Supernatural. I mentioned Crowley, but there is also the Winchester boys. Yes, they're the good guys, but they've done things over the years that could be considered evil. They've killed people. Every time they kill an Angel or a demon, they're also killing the human hos, unless said host is already dead, as was the case of Ruby (her human host was brain dead, but that's pretty much the same thing as actual death, that person is gone for good). There is no black and white morality on SPN, nor should there be. SPN was written for the audience of today, not the audience of the Ozzie and Harriet era.
The mustache twirling villains in the black hats, out of the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, had no place in a turn of the Millennium program like Charmed was. As I said, I strongly feel that is why Charmed does not have the same presence on Social Media that SPN and Buffy does. A modern audience is not going to connect to a show who's moralities were 40-50 years out of date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melinda Halliwell on Nov 17, 2015 4:10:03 GMT -5
Same with Supernatural. I mentioned Crowley, but there is also the Winchester boys. Yes, they're the good guys, but they've done things over the years that could be considered evil. They've killed people. Every time they kill an Angel or a demon, they're also killing the human hos, unless said host is already dead, as was the case of Ruby (her human host was brain dead, but that's pretty much the same thing as actual death, that person is gone for good). There is no black and white morality on SPN, nor should there be. SPN was written for the audience of today, not the audience of the Ozzie and Harriet era. Which amazes me somewhat as before they got Ruby's knife the brothers exorcised whatever demon was possessing whatever human it was which stopped once that happened because it was easier doing that other than realising it wasn't the host's fault in the first place but as you said not everything's black and white with Supernatural anyway. I'm surprised the police haven't picked up on the number of people who have died which there have been lots of and done something about that although they don't know who's killed them etc. You'd think with the Winchester brothers any possessed person would be dispossessed or sent back to heaven in terms of angels and then any actual born evil like Charmed demons had they met anything like them already would be killed using the knife, angel blade whatnot. Well that's what I'd do in their position anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Sadrick on Nov 17, 2015 9:17:47 GMT -5
Same with Supernatural. I mentioned Crowley, but there is also the Winchester boys. Yes, they're the good guys, but they've done things over the years that could be considered evil. They've killed people. Every time they kill an Angel or a demon, they're also killing the human hos, unless said host is already dead, as was the case of Ruby (her human host was brain dead, but that's pretty much the same thing as actual death, that person is gone for good). There is no black and white morality on SPN, nor should there be. SPN was written for the audience of today, not the audience of the Ozzie and Harriet era. Which amazes me somewhat as before they got Ruby's knife the brothers exorcised whatever demon was possessing whatever human it was which stopped once that happened because it was easier doing that other than realising it wasn't the host's fault in the first place but as you said not everything's black and white with Supernatural anyway. I'm surprised the police haven't picked up on the number of people who have died which there have been lots of and done something about that although they don't know who's killed them etc. You'd think with the Winchester brothers any possessed person would be dispossessed or sent back to heaven in terms of angels and then any actual born evil like Charmed demons had they met anything like them already would be killed using the knife, angel blade whatnot. Well that's what I'd do in their position anyway. To be fair, quite a few of the encounters with demons/angels in Supernatural were too hazardous to permit the Winchesters to exorcise each and every one. It's difficult to maintain any sort of restraint when you have four demons actively trying to kill you. What's ironic is that Sam has recently taken a more compassionate approach in S11 with going back to his roots of wanting to help people rather than just kill while making sure that Dean abides by this standard as well. But even then, in the recent episode he was forced to kill one host because he was about to get killed. He was still able to rescue two out of three hosts, though. By Supernatural standards that's pretty good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 11:23:58 GMT -5
You're so right, I would've ended the Billie/Christy plot with a power bind/strip. Billie could've easily extinguish/redirected her fireball, instead of murdering her. But then the show wouldn't have gone for another year had that happened would it? The channel was changing to become the CW and the execs needed a show to fulfill a time slot 'cause they couldn't get anything else which Charmed took provided it had a year round plot it could do hence the Billie/Christy storyline. Yes binding her powers was the sensible option but then the writers had nothing else to use afterwards been why things panned out the way they did which if they'd sat down and thought of seriously would've made the season more likeable obviously say if the real big bad had turned out to be the sisters for instance and not Christy the ultimate innocent who was right about the Charmed Ones being evil for neglecting their duties and the bad things they done before like killing Rick for e.g. Sorry I don't get what you mean because they would've known they weren't getting a S9 by that point. Had they just bound Christy's powers at the end of S8 it would've been left quite ambiguous and implied that the Charmed Ones and the Jenkins had a lot of issues/healing to get through. Christy could've even been shown to be 'cured' in that dumb flashforward. And, if they had got a S9, that would've equally been an interesting storyline to explore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 11:34:24 GMT -5
The channel was changing to become the CW and the execs needed a show to fulfill a time slot 'cause they couldn't get anything else which Charmed took provided it had a year round plot it could do hence the Billie/Christy storyline. Actually, the CW didn't have anything to do with why Charmed was renewed for Season 8. Almost all of the WB's new shows bombed in the 2004-05 season, so despite the show's ratings collapsing in Season 7, the network had nothing to fill Charmed's old timeslot with. Thus, the WB renewed the show with a lobotomized budget and mandated that Charmed try to set up a potential spinoff (aka. Billie). The CW wasn't announced until January 2006, and that was the final nail in the coffin for Charmed. Despite being owned by the same parent company (CBS), the CW had little interest in the show. Combined with the leads' contracts all ending with Season 8, Kaley Cuoco's disinterest in doing a spinoff, and Aaron Spelling's death, that pretty much killed the chances of Season 9 or a spinoff ever being greenlit. Would any of the lead actresses have renewed their contracts? I can imagine Rose skipped out of the door. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 11:38:53 GMT -5
Same with Supernatural. I mentioned Crowley, but there is also the Winchester boys. Yes, they're the good guys, but they've done things over the years that could be considered evil. They've killed people. Every time they kill an Angel or a demon, they're also killing the human hos, unless said host is already dead, as was the case of Ruby (her human host was brain dead, but that's pretty much the same thing as actual death, that person is gone for good). There is no black and white morality on SPN, nor should there be. SPN was written for the audience of today, not the audience of the Ozzie and Harriet era. The mustache twirling villains in the black hats, out of the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, had no place in a turn of the Millennium program like Charmed was. As I said, I strongly feel that is why Charmed does not have the same presence on Social Media that SPN and Buffy does. A modern audience is not going to connect to a show who's moralities were 40-50 years out of date. Such interesting points that I had never considered before. I suppose Cole was as close as Charmed got to portraying a morally ambiguous character, but even then he was pushed back into 'Big Bad' status towards the end of his tenure. They had such a good opportunity to make Phoebe take a good hard look at herself in S5 and recognise her part to play in Cole's undoing, especially her own free decision to become Queen of the Underworld. All this, "the baby made me do it" nonsense just doesn't wash. It actually would've made sense if Phoebe had acknowledged her 'dark side' as this was alluded to several times in S1-3. |
|
|
|
Post by sol on Nov 17, 2015 12:11:45 GMT -5
Even the " the audience of today" could love to see a tale with a clear diversity between good and evil
After all the Star Wars cycle is founded on the struggle between Good and Evil:the Bad Guy can regret and try to fix the bad things done but there are no grey areas
In Charmed, Cole was the bad guy who thinks to be able to make up for what he did but he failed: whether you think that his Belthazor side wasn't able to hold out on Source's power or you think that his human side wasn't able to agree to live as a simple human
His failure fits the lesson of fairy tales like the Little Mermaid of Andersen:: if you change you nature, you must be aware that you'll live with pain and nostalgia
Supernatural world is very faraway from the world of tales which Charmed belongs, it's useless to make comparisons
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 14:42:11 GMT -5
Would any of the lead actresses have renewed their contracts? I can imagine Rose skipped out of the door. Holly has said that she was willing to stay on Charmed for as long as she had to, so she might've renewed for a Season 9. But, Alyssa and ESPECIALLY Rose would've had to be held by gunpoint before they'd renew for Season 9. The fact that neither of them even stuck around for the series finale showed how done with Charmed they were. Even if Holly was willing to return, there was no Charmed without all three of them, so that effectively ended the show. (Although, I could've seen Kern trying to replace Phoebe and Paige with Billie and Christy if they had gotten a Season 9 renewal, which would've ended disastrously. Luckily, Kaley's refusal to continue with Charmed also killed that idea.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 17:15:51 GMT -5
That's probably one of the reasons hunter have to keep constantly on the move. There was an episode in which addressed the fact that hunters never go back to a town they've had a case in before, because sometimes there is a body count. Yeah, sometimes events just move too fast for the Winchester boys and it's kill or be killed. They have no fancy powers or Elders to bail them out, so they sometimes have to make touch choices. At least in his final appearance on the show, Seven Year Witch, he was a good guy again. Of course, the later season Charmed Ones had become vain and selfish creatures who cared only for their own comforts. They did whatever they jolly well pleased, consequences be damned. It was evil for Cole to kill those two oxygen wasters in the one with Paige's father, but it was perfectly okay for Phoebe and Paige to kill Rick in Hyde School Reunion. Double standard, anyone  It sure the heck is. SPN is written for the audience of the 21st Century, while Charmed was written for the audience of the 1950's. |
|
|
|
Post by erikamarie on Nov 17, 2015 17:39:44 GMT -5
[/quote]Such interesting points that I had never considered before. I suppose Cole was as close as Charmed got to portraying a morally ambiguous character, but even then he was pushed back into 'Big Bad' status towards the end of his tenure. They had such a good opportunity to make Phoebe take a good hard look at herself in S5 and recognise her part to play in Cole's undoing, especially her own free decision to become Queen of the Underworld. All this, "the baby made me do it" nonsense just doesn't wash. It actually would've made sense if Phoebe had acknowledged her 'dark side' as this was alluded to several times in S1-3. ;[/quote]
IMO, Cole isn't an ambiguous character, he belongs to a demoniac elite which has many similarities with the human world
I liked the Brotherhood of the Thorn, they were smart, stylish, resolute in the conquest of economic power certainly dangerous
Cole is a representative member of this elite, he loves to live in human society, he likes expensive clothes, sports cars, elegant houses, as a normal rich and powerful man
Instead of obtaining a trophy wife, he falls in love with the most unlikely person, a witch as powerful as naive, to young, too plain for him, but he is in love, and this love drags him to betray his brothers and to look for a new life in the world of men
There is a large discrepancy between dreams and reality, Cole'll have a hard time to adapt himself to the new state but unambiguously, Cole is simply unable to find his way
|
|
