Love/Hate [** Spoilers **]

TomOnBoard

Deleted User wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Whoa come on now your being way too strong viewed here. Yes there is a few comments about the good looking actresses appearing in the show and their features but to compare the posters making them to a rapist or a knocking shop client is very much OTT now.

Just to be clear i was as disgusted as anyone by the scenes at the beginning of the program but i dont object to their airing because it is giving us an insight to the seediness and grossity of a world that almost operates parallel to the one we go about our business in and credit where due to the very talented Susan Loughnane for playing a blinder with such a challenging part

There is a few comments about Darren and Tommy on this thread also and you will find both are well got with the female (or gay or same sex people who are straight just paying a compliment) posters

I dont object to them. Its harmless and its human nature. People find certain men attractive and more people find certain women attractive.
It is quite frankly utterly outrageous for you to suggest that stating 'such and so is attractive is equivalent to supporting prostitution and rape and thats pretty much what you are suggesting

Hey TG.

Missing my point so I won't go through it sentence by sentence. Ok?

podgemonster

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Stay with me here!

L/H shows the lads to be totally in charge across the 3 series. Any of the few strong female characters are out (Mary) or practically invisible in Series 3 (Trish).

Series 3 predominantly shows females as victims of sexual assault (paid for (All the many CLEARLY FORCED sales of Debbie's body) unpaid for (Appalling knuckleduster and subsequent Rape of Siobhan)) or potential victims ( Niges acid attack threat on Siobhan's friend)

And as for how a nubile woman with a history of institutionalised care for mental illness (Georgina) is treated by the characters , words fail me.

There were those even 3 weeks ago who said that L/H represents a poorly focused lens through which to view criminality in Dublin today. Well, I think the many contributions over the past few weeks from those close to the territory represented, of the authenticity of L/H have put those views to the sword.

So, in light of that authenticity, and without wishing to act as anyone's moral censor, I wonder whether anyone else would agree with me- that the ladies have suffered enough on this series.

I have daughters.

Siobhan's characterisation of a Rape victim with her GP last Sunday left me awestruck, saddenned, sickened and outraged.

The multiplicity of Debbie's enforced sexual positions disgusted me- it wasn't Debbie who disgusted me, it was the clients and mostly the ****ERS who manage and win off this trade.

So could we Guys who are posting here show a bit of respect towards the L/H gals so that we are not just a representation of the ****in Evil Git that was Git!

Sooooooo, am I gonna be fired from this thread like the other guy who forced the thread closure 3 weeks ago; or will anyone read this and have a quick think before posting a response.

This by far was the most moving and gut wrenching scene of the series for me so far. The horror and brutality of rape and it repercussions poured out in front of the viewers in a superb soliloquy and performed movingly by Charlie Murphy.

These things are suppose to disgust you. They happen and shouldn't be hidden to save peoples blushes. Siobhan and Debbie are examples of women who have made misjudgments, being exploited, manipulated and weakened by the cruel world around them.

There is still 2(?) episodes left and there is definitely an opportunity for redemption for some of these characters (or further tragedy).

Ash.J.Williams

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Stay with me here!

L/H shows the lads to be totally in charge across the 3 series. Any of the few strong female characters are out (Mary) or practically invisible in Series 3 (Trish).

Series 3 predominantly shows females as victims of sexual assault (paid for (All the many CLEARLY FORCED sales of Debbie's body) unpaid for (Appalling knuckleduster and subsequent Rape of Siobhan)) or potential victims ( Niges acid attack threat on Siobhan's friend)

And as for how a nubile woman with a history of institutionalised care for mental illness (Georgina) is treated by the characters , words fail me.

There were those even 3 weeks ago who said that L/H represents a poorly focused lens through which to view criminality in Dublin today. Well, I think the many contributions over the past few weeks from those close to the territory represented, of the authenticity of L/H have put those views to the sword.

So, in light of that authenticity, and without wishing to act as anyone's moral censor, I wonder whether anyone else would agree with me- that the ladies have suffered enough on this series.

I have daughters

Siobhan's characterisation of a Rape victim with her GP last Sunday left me awestruck, saddenned, sickened and outraged.

The multiplicity of Debbie's enforced sexual positions disgusted me- it wasn't Debbie who disgusted me, it was the clients and mostly the ****ERS who manage and win off this trade.
So could we Guys who are posting here show a bit of respect towards the L/H gals so that we are not just a representation of the ****in Evil Git that was Git!

Sooooooo, am I gonna be fired from this thread like the other guy who forced the thread closure 3 weeks ago; or will anyone read this and have a quick think before posting a response.

You're dead right, the scenes with Debbie this week remind me of "requiem for a dream" where they make the males out to be overly vile to the viewer. Women were "the dons" downfall too in real life.

Happyman42

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Stay with me here!

L/H shows the lads to be totally in charge across the 3 series. Any of the few strong female characters are out (Mary) or practically invisible in Series 3 (Trish).

Series 3 predominantly shows females as victims of sexual assault (paid for (All the many CLEARLY FORCED sales of Debbie's body) unpaid for (Appalling knuckleduster and subsequent Rape of Siobhan)) or potential victims ( Niges acid attack threat on Siobhan's friend)

And as for how a nubile woman with a history of institutionalised care for mental illness (Georgina) is treated by the characters , words fail me.

There were those even 3 weeks ago who said that L/H represents a poorly focused lens through which to view criminality in Dublin today. Well, I think the many contributions over the past few weeks from those close to the territory represented, of the authenticity of L/H have put those views to the sword.

So, in light of that authenticity, and without wishing to act as anyone's moral censor, I wonder whether anyone else would agree with me- that the ladies have suffered enough on this series.

I have daughters.

Siobhan's characterisation of a Rape victim with her GP last Sunday left me awestruck, saddenned, sickened and outraged.

The multiplicity of Debbie's enforced sexual positions disgusted me- it wasn't Debbie who disgusted me, it was the clients and mostly the ****ERS who manage and win off this trade.

So could we Guys who are posting here show a bit of respect towards the L/H gals so that we are not just a representation of the ****in Evil Git that was Git!

Sooooooo, am I gonna be fired from this thread like the other guy who forced the thread closure 3 weeks ago; or will anyone read this and have a quick think before posting a response.

The uber cool gangsta genre does not and cannot avoid the problem of stereotyping in it's manipulation of it's core audience. I think this series has now major issues with this and you have highlighted another one.
The over weening uber coolness of it's style over the actual content(designed to appeal to males of a certain outlook. eg. it is no mistake that a discussion on the 'scoreability' of the girls has broken out, that was the casting 'intent' :rolleyes:) is revealing quite a nasty, if not, confused intent.


btw, I wasn't fired from the thread, I opted out because 'some' decided I wasn't entitled to a point of view. I'm sure the writers are delighted that there are those who will defend their work to the death but the inability of some to take on board any disscussive criticism of this series (which your post was) is a worrying trend on the Television forum.

mtjm

I'm enjoying the L/H at the moment, and while people are complaining it's over the top etc.. I do agree but regardless weather you like it or not stuff like that happens in real life.


back to the topic at hand I would like to make a bold prediction and I'll give my reasons why;


John Boy faked his death; Here's the reason why I think

1. He was shot in the face so no one will recognise his face (including family members)

2. The guy who was stalking Mary (Darren sister) he was shot not just because Darren wanted him dead so he'll stay away from his sister also Nidge said he knew too much about John Boy's death, also remember Nidge was almost going to Kill Darren as he was burying the body


Be interesting over the next couple weeks.

Just An Opinion

Just An Opinion wrote: »

Trishs' body with Marys' head, perfect!

Nothing wrong with Ruth Bradley's bod either. Look at the beginning of episode 1. Serious bit of kit

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

The uber cool gangsta genre does not and cannot avoid the problem of stereotyping in it's manipulation of it's core audience. I think this series has now major issues with this and you have highlighted another one.
The over weening uber coolness of it's style over the actual content(designed to appeal to males of a certain outlook. eg. it is no mistake that a discussion on the 'scoreability' of the girls has broken out, that was the casting 'intent' :rolleyes:) is revealing quite a nasty, if not, confused intent.


btw, I wasn't fired from the thread, I opted out because 'some' decided I wasn't entitled to a point of view. I'm sure the writers are delighted that there are those who will defend their work to the death but the inability of some to take on board any disscussive criticism of this series (which your post was) is a worrying trend on the Television forum.

Even if the women were butt ugly
Or there is certain stereotypes which to be fair there are one or two


Its still a kickass show and i dont think its a million miles from reality tbh.

thiarfearr

There was an article a few weeks back with some convicted criminals who were being used as extras in Love/Hate, they said they thought it was very true to life

Sleepy

This show portrays Ireland's criminal underclass: even the virtuous characters in the show have never had a job in their lives. These are ignorant, uneducated people (there was even a comment from John Boy's lawyer last season about how he'd never sat his leaving cert - and he was portrayed as one of the clever ones before the drug induced paranoia).

As such, is it any surprise that the men in the show are misogynists? That the women put up with it because they were raised by similar men to those that they're now mistreated by and don't seem to know any better (case in point: Siobhan).

As for Debbie? She's a heroin addict. Women in her position tend to fall into abusive positions. She's uneducated, has no family support and doesn't seem the sharpest tool in the drawer. What else can she do to support her habit? She's not exactly built for mugging people on the street. There's a good reason that sex-workers tend to have a high proportion of drug users: because it's one of the few ways someone can earn the quantities of cash required to feed an addiction that would render them incapable of earning it otherwise.

The ladies in the show are treated fairly harshly alright but lets not kid ourselves that it's not accurate. It can be argued that the men in the show are just as much a victim of circumstance and however horribly the women are getting treated, I can only think of one (Fran's wife) that's actually lost her life to the world they all inhabit.

Happyman42

Sleepy wrote: »

This show portrays Ireland's criminal underclass: even the virtuous characters in the show have never had a job in their lives. These are ignorant, uneducated people (there was even a comment from John Boy's lawyer last season about how he'd never sat his leaving cert - and he was portrayed as one of the clever ones before the drug induced paranoia).

As such, is it any surprise that the men in the show are misogynists? That the women put up with it because they were raised by similar men to those that they're now mistreated by and don't seem to know any better (case in point: Siobhan).

As for Debbie? She's a heroin addict. Women in her position tend to fall into abusive positions. She's uneducated, has no family support and doesn't seem the sharpest tool in the drawer. What else can she do to support her habit? She's not exactly built for mugging people on the street. There's a good reason that sex-workers tend to have a high proportion of drug users: because it's one of the few ways someone can earn the quantities of cash required to feed an addiction that would render them incapable of earning it otherwise.

The ladies in the show are treated fairly harshly alright but lets not kid ourselves that it's not accurate. It can be argued that the men in the show are just as much a victim of circumstance and however horribly the women are getting treated, I can only think of one (Fran's wife) that's actually lost her life to the world they all inhabit.

Would you be critical of the casting of these women at all? That they are deliberately cast to appeal to the 'I'd give her one' brigade and are therefore engaging in the exact same thing, exploitation. Maybe not as seedy, but exploitation all the same?

listermint

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you be critical of the casting of these women at all? That they are deliberately cast to appeal to the 'I'd give her one' brigade and are therefore engaging in the exact same thing, exploitation. Maybe not as seedy, but exploitation all the same?

no .

el diablo

Series 4.

RTE confirms 'Love/Hate' gets nod for new series

RTE has signed off on a fourth series of 'Love/Hate'.

But despite audiences growing dramatically for the third series – up 20pc last Sunday to reach a record 820,000 – station bosses have ruled out any increase in the budget.

A new DVD and box-set of the series is expected to be a money-spinner for RTE when it goes on sale on December 17 – the day after the last episode airs.

The show has already been sold to Scottish TV, and broadcast in Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and the Middle East.

Cast member Lawrence Kinlan, who plays gangster Elmo, spoke of his shock at the popularity of this series.

Brought up on Buckingham Street, behind Talbot Street in Dublin, he revealed he had helped his fellow actors researching their roles.

"For anyone who is not familiar with that background, it's hard to access. I know a little bit and can pass that information on."

Strongbow10

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you be critical of the casting of these women at all? That they are deliberately cast to appeal to the 'I'd give her one' brigade and are therefore engaging in the exact same thing, exploitation. Maybe not as seedy, but exploitation all the same?

if they were going that route i'd imagine they would have picked serious totty then

All joking aside, the casting of the women has been good. Ruth Bradley for instance is a terrific actress, its not the look that makes her so talented.

ThisRegard

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you be critical of the casting of these women at all? That they are deliberately cast to appeal to the 'I'd give her one' brigade and are therefore engaging in the exact same thing, exploitation. Maybe not as seedy, but exploitation all the same?

It's more reflective of some of the programs audience than it is of the exploiton of women within the program by the program makers.

Personaly, I thought that whole who's your favourite gangsters moll thing that started on this thread was childish and opened up the program to such criticisms, and so it has.

But as was said, it's a realistic portrayal of how women are treated by such people, the threats, both physical and mental, made against them, and what can happen once cast aside.

Sleepy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Would you be critical of the casting of these women at all? That they are deliberately cast to appeal to the 'I'd give her one' brigade and are therefore engaging in the exact same thing, exploitation. Maybe not as seedy, but exploitation all the same?

I really can't see how casting attractive women in these roles is exploitation?

A couple of thoughts on this:

1. Actors, as a group, tend to be more attractive than the general population.
2. Have you ever seen an Irish criminal organisation have as many good-looking men as we have in this show? Female posters on this thread (and plenty of the women in my own life) have commented on Darren, Tommy and Nidge being attractive.
3. If we accept that the criminal gang are the central characters, it makes sense that the women in their lives are reasonably attractive. These are the type of guys who go for trophy wives/girlfriends rather than someone who can sit down and intelligently discuss the characterisation of the TV drama they're watching together on a Sunday night: a certain level of looks is essential to being able to play their characters.

I think the attractiveness of some of the women is being overplayed a little as well tbh. I can't see any of the actresses having hollywood beat their doors down to replace Megan Fox in the next Transformers movie for example (though I could certainly see Charlie Murphy getting a movie deal based on her abilities as an actress).

And, finally, it's not exactly Hollyoaks either: there are plenty of the female cast I wouldn't classify as attractive at all (Donna, Elmo's girlfriend, Lizzy, Donna's blonde mate this week)

doughef

I read in today's Indo that RTE have given the go ahead for series 4

kraggy

Why did Darren ask Elmo what his kid's name is on the stairs outside Elmos flat? And then went on to the say that Elmos uncle tried to have him clipped.

knucklehead6

kraggy wrote: »

Why did Darren ask Elmo what his kid's name is on the stairs outside Elmos flat? And then went on to the say that Elmos uncle tried to have him clipped.

To put the fear of god into him.

I took from that that he was implying the kid could yet grow up without his father....

youtube!

Hey I have just got into this show a few weeks back, I am totally hooked! Its horrible and scummy but I just cant take my eyes off it. I bought the first 2 series and have just finished watching them.

I missed the first 20 mins of episode 1 series 3 so I only saw it from when Elmo got his face bitten by the RA man, can anyone fill me in as to anything I missed before that,its such a great show with so many intertwining plot lines that I am afraid I may have missed something, for instance when did Fran get out of prison? Does it show that he does or is it assumed?

Also when did the RA man and his son get involved and why? I know the series moves fast I keep thinking I missed an entire episode!

Oh btw I simply have to say a couple of little things annoy the **** outta me though, for example,instead of saying something like " thats all" at the end of a sentence they americanise it by saying "is all" "I am just doin a bit of paint balling with the lads is all" Oh and nidge has to be home for his kids BURTHDAY, sorry it just bugs me a teeny bit.

Lastly I have to say that Fran steals the show for me. He is the spittin image of an American actor who I love called Gary Busey, its uncanny because even if he has a totally different accent has the exact same husky tone in his voice, and he just goes on the same way too. Anyway sorry for the long post off to watch episode 3 series 3 now!

JoeA3

youtube! wrote: »

Lastly I have to say that Fran steals the show for me. He is the spittin image of an American actor who I love called Gary Busey, its uncanny because even if he has a totally different accent has the exact same husky tone in his voice, and he just goes on the same way too. Anyway sorry for the long post off to watch episode 3 series 3 now!

Haha, you are right actually, he is a bit like Gary Busey! Remember him as one of the main bad guys, Commander Krill in Under Siege!

William Strannix: You're a maniac. Drowning your own crew.
Commander Krill: They never liked me anyway.
Doumer: I bet they ****in' love ya now, huh?

youtube!

JoeA3 wrote: »

Haha, you are right actually, he is a bit like Gary Busey! Remember him as one of the main bad guys, Commander Krill in Under Siege!

William Strannix: You're a maniac. Drowning your own crew.
Commander Krill: They never liked me anyway.
Doumer: I bet they ****in' love ya now, huh?

:D:D:D, he is just class, you just reminded me I must watch that again!

mloc123

Did anyone notice how McGinely asked nidge if there was any trouble with Git and the prostitutes... his tone implied that there would have been.

closeline

Anywhere online to watch Series 1 and 2?

Sunnyisland

mloc123 wrote: »

Did anyone notice how McGinley asked nidge if there was any trouble with Git and the prostitutes... his tone implied that there would have been.

Yes and I got the impression that he was surprised when Nidge said there was no bother

Lord Trollington

mtjm wrote: »

I'm enjoying the L/H at the moment, and while people are complaining it's over the top etc.. I do agree but regardless weather you like it or not stuff like that happens in real life.


back to the topic at hand I would like to make a bold prediction and I'll give my reasons why;


John Boy faked his death; Here's the reason why I think

1. He was shot in the face so no one will recognise his face (including family members)

2. The guy who was stalking Mary (Darren sister) he was shot not just because Darren wanted him dead so he'll stay away from his sister also Nidge said he knew too much about John Boy's death, also remember Nidge was almost going to Kill Darren as he was burying the body


Be interesting over the next couple weeks.

I'll have what you're smoking.

AnonoBoy

mtjm wrote: »

John Boy faked his death.

I guarantee you this is not what happened. 100% definitely not.

No way.

Dancor

mloc123 wrote: »

Did anyone notice how McGinely asked nidge if there was any trouble with Git and the prostitutes... his tone implied that there would have been.

Yeah I'd say Git had previous form for assaulting women. In the add for last weeks elisode he asks Dano "could he have done this" I thought he was alluding to the rape.

knucklehead6

Just bought S1. Only €8. Can't got bloody wrong, can ya?

Our man in Havana

closeline wrote: »

Anywhere online to watch Series 1 and 2?

No. Now do not ask again.

Anyone supplying links will be dealt with.

newballsplease

mloc123 wrote: »

Did anyone notice how McGinely asked nidge if there was any trouble with Git and the prostitutes... his tone implied that there would have been.

But there wasnt any trouble with Git and the prostitutes....