Elise (The Big Secret)

[simmons79]

come on charmed is a light hearted show and a family show . yeah its about things that a not real but whats wrong with that ? i thought the ending was good , whats wrong with a happy ending !! and come on we are meant to be charmed fans !!!!!!!

[ljones]

Maybe but its TV! Of course its pure fiction and fantasy, its Witches and Magic and showing the existence of sandmen and muses and things we tell stories about all the time but are not real.

So are shows like BUFFY and SMALLVILLE. But even those shows know how to acknowledge real moral ambiguity when the story calls for it . . . unlike CHARMED. And those shows feature main characters that are younger than the Halliwells.

[colehellsangel]

Who says Charmed called for it. The theme of the entire show is that Good always prevails. Even when Prue died good still prevailed because then Paige came along and saved the power of three. So everyone dying is not a fitting ending for a show where good is always supposed to prevail.

[simmons79]

you are slagging of charmed about not being real life then you compare it to BUFFY and SMALLVILLE come on ! get real , what a girl who fights vampires and a super hero , i have heard it all now ! if you want to watch something real you should watch the news !!!

[Esmeralda]

simmons79 said:

you are slagging of charmed about not being real life then you compare it to BUFFY and SMALLVILLE come on ! get real , what a girl who fights vampires and a super hero , i have heard it all now ! if you want to watch something real you should watch the news !!!

Here's the difference. The executive producers of those shows respected their shows enough to make them consistent so the shows *seemed* real. Yes, of course, such things are impossible, but the best part of fiction is "the suspension of disbelief", when an impossible book/movie/TV show is done so realisitically despite the content that you actually believe in it and can forget the real world as you lose yourself in this make-believe world that seems real--like what happened with in The Wizard of Oz or Star Wars or Harry Potter--everything in that was impossible, but it was done *so* well that it seemed real.

That's why it's even *more* important for scifi/fantasy shows to be consistent; it's what allows us to suspend disbelief. And that's what Charmed did *so* well during Connie Burge's regime and did *so* horribly once Brad Kern took over.

My favorite example of "the suspension of disbelief" is my other favorite scif-fi/fantay TV show, the original Star Trek. C'mon--Transporters? Communicator? Phasers? Photon topedoes? All of those were impossible back in the '60's when it was first aired, although they are more possible now (and we Trekkers believe *our* show had a lot to do with that!) But every time someone on the show used one of those, they used it exactly the same way and it worked exactly the same way. And we viewers really believed that they worked that way.

And that wasn't a coincidence. Before they even began filming the show, their executive producer, Gene Roddenberry, took the time to write out an entire "show bible", showing how all of those various things would work. And each time something new was added, it was added to the book. You couldn't change things just for the sake of a new plot. I truly think Charmed's biggest mistake was the way they got caught up in all of those catchy episode titles--making the plot fit the titles rather than the other way around (can anyone say Witchstock or Hyde School Reunion??)

I'm sure all of those shows you mentioned had Show Bibles that they stuck to. I'm just as sure that Charmed didn't.

[colehellsangel]

when an impossible book/movie/TV show is done so realisitically despite the content that you actually believe in it and can forget the real world as you lose yourself in this make-believe world that seems real--like what happened with in The Wizard of Oz or Star Wars or Harry Potter--everything in that was impossible, but it was done *so* well that it seemed real.

I can totally see where you are coming from with this point, Charmed does have you feeling like it's real in a sense because of the way they tell the stories and show the demons and monsters so well. Technology these days has done that for us. And the original concept for the show was to have it be realistic and have you be able to relate to it in the sense that these girls are still people that have lives and relationships and stuff. It was even said in a clip I saw on youtube and I quote:

"They are not witches that happened to be sisters, they are sisters that happen to be witches."

So originally before Kern got his hands on them, the concept was for these girls to be just like us in the real world only they have magical powers. They still have struggles and problems and love, and happiness and sadness and loss just like we do.

So this point you have made makes total sense to me.

[charmedfan4evr]

simmons79 said:

i thought the ending was good , whats wrong with a happy ending !! and come on we are meant to be charmed fans !!!!!!!

First, nothing is wrong with a happy ending. I just don't like the way this happy ending ended. It could have been a very happy ending in the present, with the present day CO. That's how it should have been, IMO.

Second, what does that have anything to do with being a Charmed fan? I am a huge huge HUGE Charmed fan, forever and always...but we all have our opinions on certain matters.

[whitelightertony]

And that's what Charmed did *so* well during Connie Burge's regime and did *so* horribly once Brad Kern took over.

Nope, sorry, Es. There were inconsistencies back during Burge's tenure too.

[Esmeralda]

Oh, yes, there definitely was. But not so glaringly obviously inconsisent as during Kern's run. Now I'll admit that that's probably due to the fact that Connie's run came first, so the way she did stuff became canon, canon Kern didn't follow. Had he done things *his* way first and Connie did it differently, I'd be saying the same thing about her.

No, I take that back. I wouldn't. Because I wouldn't have kept watching the show. By the time Kern took over, I was already hooked.

[ljones]

you are slagging of charmed about not being real life then you compare it to BUFFY and SMALLVILLE come on ! get real , what a girl who fights vampires and a super hero , i have heard it all now ! if you want to watch something real you should watch the news !!!

Yet despite BUFFY and SMALLVILLE being fantasy shows, they are able to capture the nuances of real human emotions and ambiguity. They are able to recognize that even good guys are capable of being dark. I'm not talking about a little darkness, but real darkness. Both shows are capable of recognizing that even bad guys possess ambiguity and can possess admirable qualities. Both shows are capable of portraying the moral complexity of sentient beings' gray natures.

CHARMED has attempted this a few times, but usually end up failing completely. During its eight year run, it never really learned to break the characters and the storytelling from its black-and-white moral compass. And because of this, I believe that the show had failed to develop in characterization and storylines in the end.

[pipercharmedphreak]

Um.. I a pretty sure the characters were able to display their emotions! Especially Piper. Her emotions were totally real with her anger and sadness at the loss of Prue. And look at how upset she was whenever Leo was taken away. To me those seem pretty real!

[ljones]

pipercharmedphreak said:

Um.. I a pretty sure the characters were able to display their emotions! Especially Piper. Her emotions were totally real with her anger and sadness at the loss of Prue. And look at how upset she was whenever Leo was taken away. To me those seem pretty real!

But that is as far as the show was willing to go. It was unwilling to show the ambiguity of all its characters . . . the Halliwells included. Sure, they were willing to show that the Halliwells were capable of making the wrong choices - like using their powers for personal gain. But they were unwilling to admit that the Halliwells were capable of some truly evil acts. And they were incapable of portraying demons, warlocks or etc. as ambiguous characters, instead of one-dimensional evil.

This is where CHARMED failed for me.

[whitelightertony]

But not so glaringly obviously inconsisent as during Kern's run.

Well, Burge had only been the showrunner for two seasons. So in comparison, it may not seem as though she was responsible for as many inconsistencies...but Kern ultimately had more seasons than Burge did to manage.

[ljones]

whitelightertony said:

But not so glaringly obviously inconsisent as during Kern's run.

Well, Burge had only been the showrunner for two seasons. So in comparison, it may not seem as though she was responsible for as many inconsistencies...but Kern ultimately had more seasons than Burge did to manage.

Actually, she was. Especially during Season 1. And some of her inconsistencies were maintained by Kern throughout the years.

[hannahpotter]

she looks like natalie the white lighter

[ljones]

No because Elise never gave her such a big problem. The "I have an emergency" excuse, always seemed to work.

It was revealed in late S7 that Elise actually had a problem with Phoebe's "family emergencies". In the episode, "Scry Hard", Elise left Phoebe in charge of the newspaper, because she wanted the Feebs to learn what it was like to be left in a lurch.

SIDE NOTE: If I were Jason Dean, I would fire Elise's butt for leaving an advice columnist of only 3 years and no degree in journalism in charge of a major newspaper. And the fact that Phoebe managed to do Elise's job seems incredibly ludicrous.

[Ashiee Pie]

truueee

like she was pheobes boss

[whitelightertony]

Elise probably had someone else (a second-in-command) watching over Phoebe to make sure she didn't run the newspaper into the ground.

[~B@MeLiSsA30@B~]

I liked Elise. She was a good boss and very understanding. I would love to have a boss like her.

[whitelightertony]

Melissa, you're a masochist?