Love/Hate [** Spoilers **]

Sleepy

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not saying that it is wrong to use dramatic devices, but the overarching concern here is to make the series stylish and appeal to a lowest common demnominator, which has severely lessened it's dramatic integrity. This casting and stereotyping would be laughed out of most theate had this been written as a stage play. Why is it different for television purposes.
Darren for instance; is he there for his acting depth or primarliy for the way he looks? I think there is enough concern about his acting ability on this thread alone to use that as evidence if the casting of and writing of the female roles isn't a concern for you.

Happyman42 wrote: »

How so?

Would you get away with such casting and blatant stereotyping in the theatre? I don't think you would, in fact I know you wouldn't.
It has been suggested on this thread that actors as a group are 'attractive' and 'goodlooking' and this is the reason this happened :rolleyes: and you suggest I am the one 'insulting intelligent life on Boards???:D

Rather than roll your eyes at my points (as one of the few trying to engage you in the conversation rather than just posting that they'd wish you'd leave the thread), why not tackle them?

Are you trying to tell me that card carrying members of Equity in Ireland wouldn't, as a group, tend to be more attractive than the general population?

To a degree, I agree with you: the cast, as a group, are probably too attractive: real inner city scumbags tend not to have such good teeth for example. It's a commercial reality of almost all drama on our screens however that the leads are rarely unattractive.

Does this diminish the series? Through the lens of realism, perhaps it does. I don't think anyone has ever intended for the series to be anything more than it is, however: an entertaining drama series for Sunday night viewers. I think it's unfair to label it as appealing to the "lowest common denominator" however: it far surpasses reality television and soap opera in terms of the realism of the story and characterisation. That it can be compared, even unfavourably, to HBO's output is a remarkable achievement given it's budgetary and geographic limitations.

Yes, it's vastly more popular than it would have been than if they'd stuck to having the actor playing Darren look more like one of the McCarthy Dundon gang and if the actresses all had terrible teeth and topknot face lifts but tbh, the worst I can say of the casting is that the actor playing Darren's doesn't look nearly "hard" enough and some of the accent work leaves a lot to be desired (though how much of that is just down to us being able to distinguish different regions of Ireland? Would everyone in the Sopranos, for example, have the correct Newark accent or were most just generically New Jersey?).

Silvio.Dante

I'm late to this thread. But all I have to say is I'm loving the show.

The first series was dominated by the onscreen ego of your man from the Wire. It put me off bigtime.

But this series is real quality...:)

Ash.J.Williams

Happyman42 wrote: »

How so?

Would you get away with such casting and blatant stereotyping in the theatre? I don't think you would, in fact I know you wouldn't.
It has been suggested on this thread that actors as a group are 'attractive' and 'goodlooking' and this is the reason this happened :rolleyes: and you suggest I am the one 'insulting intelligent life on Boards???:D

You're sinking lower with every post. Was that a dig at boards posters now? I was referring to the 1m viewers. If it was 50 shades of grey we were discussing you would he correct. What has actually happened is our country is captivated by a wonderful tv show, that is improving by the series, and 1m people happen to like it. You seem to think we're all sheep and fanboys, when the truth is, we all seem to know more about good tv then you do...

Ella

I prefered this thread when people actually posted about the show.

Ash.J.Williams

Aidos pillow talk "ahh mind me leg Will ya"

stevenmu

closeline wrote: »

Our man in Havana wrote:

No. Now do not ask again.

Anyone supplying links will be dealt with.

What is the bloody problem??? It was just a ****ing question like..could someone PM me please if they know a sight to watch them on. Thanks

It's like watching Tommy tell Nidge about riding Georgina. You know what's going to happen. You know it's going to be ugly. But you just can't look away. :pac:

ejmaztec

Avoiding RTE output like the plague, I imagined that Love/Hate was going to be Fair City with guns, knives and the same standard of lousy acting, but for some reason I decided to watch the whole lot over the last week, so am now bang up to date.

In my opinion it's the best offering that RTE has come up with since the tv transmitters were first switched on in Ireland.:D

Happyman42

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You're sinking lower with every post. Was that a dig at boards posters now? I was referring to the 1m viewers. If it was 50 shades of grey we were discussing you would he correct. What has actually happened is our country is captivated by a wonderful tv show, that is improving by the series, and 1m people happen to like it. You seem to think we're all sheep and fanboys, when the truth is, we all seem to know more about good tv then you do...

You where the one who took umbrage at an imaginary insult to 'our intelligence'.

1m watch the show, including me, however you cannot say that everyone is analzying it in the same way. It is a landmark, much touted series and those type of programmes tend to get high veiwing figures.
I am glad that some on here are agreeing with some of what I am saying though.
I still find it astounding that anyone would believe that the casting issue is covered and excused by saying that the vast majority of the acting fraternity is 'attractive'. Was Ger Ryan cast in the Family because of her looks or her ability to play the part of Charlo's wife?
Uber cool gansta dramas depend on these casting priorities, style over credibility and content. This series is riddled with stereotypes, the RA elements, the female leads, some of the male leads etc. I don't understand how this can be overlooked while calling this a credible and accurate depiction of crimminal life in Ireland.

Ash.J.Williams

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where the one who took umbrage at an imaginary insult to 'our intelligence'.

1m watch the show, including me, however you cannot say that everyone is analzying it in the same way. It is a landmark, much touted series and those type of programmes tend to get high veiwing figures.
I am glad that some on here are agreeing with some of what I am saying though.
I still find it astounding that anyone would believe that the casting issue is covered and excused by saying that the vast majority of the acting fraternity is 'attractive'. Was Ger Ryan cast in the Family because of her looks or her ability to play the part of Charlo's wife?
Uber cool gansta dramas depend on these casting priorities, style over credibility and content. This series is riddled with stereotypes, the RA elements, the female leads, some of the male leads etc. I don't understand how this can be overlooked while calling this a credible and accurate depiction of crimminal life in Ireland.

I call it a tv show

listermint

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where the one who took umbrage at an imaginary insult to 'our intelligence'.

1m watch the show, including me, however you cannot say that everyone is analzying it in the same way. It is a landmark, much touted series and those type of programmes tend to get high veiwing figures.
I am glad that some on here are agreeing with some of what I am saying though.
I still find it astounding that anyone would believe that the casting issue is covered and excused by saying that the vast majority of the acting fraternity is 'attractive'. Was Ger Ryan cast in the Family because of her looks or her ability to play the part of Charlo's wife?
Uber cool gansta dramas depend on these casting priorities, style over credibility and content. This series is riddled with stereotypes, the RA elements, the female leads, some of the male leads etc. I don't understand how this can be overlooked while calling this a credible and accurate depiction of crimminal life in Ireland.

Discovery Channel Documentaries (thata way) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ViveLaVie

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where the one who took umbrage at an imaginary insult to 'our intelligence'.

1m watch the show, including me, however you cannot say that everyone is analzying it in the same way. It is a landmark, much touted series and those type of programmes tend to get high veiwing figures.
I am glad that some on here are agreeing with some of what I am saying though.
I still find it astounding that anyone would believe that the casting issue is covered and excused by saying that the vast majority of the acting fraternity is 'attractive'. Was Ger Ryan cast in the Family because of her looks or her ability to play the part of Charlo's wife?
Uber cool gansta dramas depend on these casting priorities, style over credibility and content. This series is riddled with stereotypes, the RA elements, the female leads, some of the male leads etc. I don't understand how this can be overlooked while calling this a credible and accurate depiction of crimminal life in Ireland.

Are you going to respond to me or Sleepy? A lot of the reason people get annoyed with you on this thread I think is because when people tackle your points you sometimes ignore them and make some other generalised statements in response.

I wrote about the casting issue at length but instead of replying you just posted the same repetitive opinions again. You seem to be implying that attractive people cannot act? And let's be realistic here - Darren and Tommy are attractive but they are hardly in the same league as some of the A listers admired for their appearance.

Yet again you repeat your mantra that it is style over substance but don't respond to anything anyone else has said to counter that and nor do you provide evidence for your point of view. Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true.

You criticised the use of artistic devices and when countered on it just ignored that and repeated the same line about style over substance. You don't have an argument.

Happyman42

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Are you going to respond to me or Sleepy? A lot of the reason people get annoyed with you on this thread I think is because when people tackle your points you sometimes ignore them and make some other generalised statements in response.

I wrote about the casting issue at length but instead of replying you just posted the same repetitive opinions again. You seem to be implying that attractive people cannot act? And let's be realistic here - Darren and Tommy are attractive but they are hardly in the same league as some of the A listers admired for their appearance.

Yet again you repeat your mantra that it is style over substance but don't respond to anything anyone else has said to counter that and nor do you provide evidence for your point of view. Saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true.

You criticised the use of artistic devices and when countered on it just ignored that and repeated the same line about style over substance. You don't have an argument.

Actually, I had dealt at lenght with the above,(and being fed up with being called 'repetitive' I ignored it) all you effectively said, was that, in your opinion, I was wrong, YOU had no problem with the casting.
What am I to do with that?
Fair enough, you don't have a problem...rock on. I do have a problem with it, in a series that routinely falls back on stereotypes. The casting is designed to make the show stylish, this consideration comes before credibility and the story. That to me is a fault and a criticism. It is not just me that has the problem either, do a search of critical analysis of the series and you will find plenty of TV critics of the same opinion.
I did not 'criticise the use of artistic devices' or 'dramatic ones', what I criticised was the use of them to exploit a certain demographic at the expense of the the dramatic integrity of the show. There is a balance, it hasn't been achieved here.

penzo

Dunno if its been mentioned but anyone else baffled by the fact dano hasnt brought up to the northie or anyone how he kneecapped aido and therefore nidges gang potentially having a motive to hit back on the ra?

Sleepy

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't understand how this can be overlooked while calling this a credible and accurate depiction of crimminal life in Ireland.

Who ever claimed it was a credible and accurate depiction of criminal life in Ireland?

The plots are, from what I know of Ireland's criminal underworld, remarkably accurate for a show that's a dramatic piece.

If they'd written the RA heads in a less stereotypical fashion or had a cast that was more "realistic" (i.e. less attractive) looking and used a less "slick" filming style (Let's say more Lynch than Nolan) do you think it would be as effective as mass market entertainment? I have to say, I don't think it wouldn't have lasted beyond the first season.

ViveLaVie

Happyman42 wrote: »

Actually, I had dealt at lenght with the above,(and being fed up with being called 'repetitive' I ignored it) all you effectively said, was that, in your opinion, I was wrong, YOU had no problem with the casting.
What am I to do with that?
Fair enough, you don't have a problem...rock on. I do have a problem with it, in a series that routinely falls back on stereotypes. The casting is designed to make the show stylish, this consideration comes before credibility and the story. That to me is a fault and a criticism. It is not just me that has the problem either, do a search of critical analysis of the series and you will find plenty of TV critics of the same opinion.
I did not 'criticise the use of artistic devices' or 'dramatic ones', what I criticised was the use of them to exploit a certain demographic at the expense of the the dramatic integrity of the show. There is a balance, it hasn't been achieved here.

You didn't reply at length to my previous post as you didn't reply at all. I didn't call you repetitive in the post to which I am referring. I said that in my last post as you didn't debate anything with me but rather made sweeping statements without backing them up.

Yeah you are supposed to debate my point with me. That is what I expected. I gave my opinion and I wanted you to discuss that. If you don't agree with me please elaborate on why.

You've stated numerous times that the show stereotypes gangsters but you won't explain why you think that.

You also haven't really argued effectively as to why you think that the producers put style before credibility by hiring people you think are too attractive. As pointed out, the cast are very capable of acting. Sure their teeth are whiter than expected but the same could be said of Aron Paul who won awards for his portrayal of Jesse in Breaking Bad. There has to be some suspension of disbelief as it is a tv show. However it is realistic in characterisation and storyline.

Okay. That is clearer. Can you elaborate as to why you think that compromises the integrity of the show? I mean, the point of showing women in such a exploitative light is to criticise the treatment of women in this scenario.

Mardy Bum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Actually, I had dealt at lenght with the above,(and being fed up with being called 'repetitive' I ignored it) all you effectively said, was that, in your opinion, I was wrong, YOU had no problem with the casting.
What am I to do with that?
Fair enough, you don't have a problem...rock on. I do have a problem with it, in a series that routinely falls back on stereotypes. The casting is designed to make the show stylish, this consideration comes before credibility and the story. That to me is a fault and a criticism. It is not just me that has the problem either, do a search of critical analysis of the series and you will find plenty of TV critics of the same opinion.
I did not 'criticise the use of artistic devices' or 'dramatic ones', what I criticised was the use of them to exploit a certain demographic at the expense of the the dramatic integrity of the show. There is a balance, it hasn't been achieved here.

You fail to take into account the number of episodes the show has and the total on screen time. Now if you want a novelesque Irish "The Wire" or "Sopranos" you will be waiting a long time because no where this side of the Atlantic does tv series of such length go into production therefore the writer is limited in what he can do. For characters to be examined in their totality you need a show like that however this is a show put out by the national broadcaster on a prime time spot. Good looking girls are found in every walk of life also so your point about their looks is redundant. Rich gangsters generally have good looking women.

moy83

penzo wrote: »

Dunno if its been mentioned but anyone else baffled by the fact dano hasnt brought up to the northie or anyone how he kneecapped aido and therefore nidges gang potentially having a motive to hit back on the ra?

I dont think he was supposed to kneecap Aido at all , didnt Git give out to him after ? He is probably keeping his mistake quiet

Happyman42

ViveLaVie wrote: »

You didn't reply at length to my previous post as you didn't reply at all. I didn't call you repetitive in the post to which I am referring. I said that in my last post as you didn't debate anything with me but rather made sweeping statements without backing them up.

I had dealt with it before, all you effectively said was, I was wrong, because it wasn't a concern for you. I'm sorry, but that is not a valid counter argument unless you say why that is. Are you happy that the characters are cast the way they are? The baser types on this thread certainly seem to be.

You've stated numerous times that the show stereotypes gangsters but you won't explain why you think that.

I have said why, it is quite evidently done to appeal to a certain minset who have their minds made up about these people, and what makes them tick, already.
A theatre writer would never get away with or expect to get away with such sterotyping in a serious drama.
Yes, theatre is a different medium, but not in this respect; veracity and credibility.

You also haven't really argued effectively as to why you think that the producers put style before credibility by hiring people you think are too attractive. As pointed out, the cast are very capable of acting.

Again, I never criticised their ability as actors, but any number of people could have played these roles. They most certainly where picked for a particular reason, of that I have no doubt.

Can you elaborate as to why you think that compromises the integrity of the show?

I just did.

I mean, the point of showing women in such a exploitative light is to criticise the treatment of women in this scenario.

Is it though? The prostitute for instance, is she just another stereotype to gratitiously underline the 'grittiness' or a real person in a real situation?
The archtypeal 'whore with a heart'...jaysus!

ViveLaVie

Happyman42 wrote: »

I had dealt with it before, all you effectively said was, I was wrong, because it wasn't a concern for you. I'm sorry, but that is not a valid counter argument unless you say why that is. Are you happy that the characters are cast the way they are? The baser types on this thread certainly seem to be.

That is not true. Did you read my post? I did not just say 'This doesn't concern me', I did say why I thought that. I laid out my reasons for why I think the debate on Darren's acting abilities is unfair, something you asked me directly. I also asked you to clarify what you meant when you said that the 'trick' was lazy and commented on how these tricks are used heavily in theatre, which you seem to think is immune to having its fair share of badly produced works.

You are not countering my argument. I laid out my reasons as to why I think Sheehan plays the character well. You did not respond and saying that I somehow argued it wasn't an issue for me is evading a proper response. If you disagree, outline why. Calling him too pretty is not responding to my post on his acting and character portrayal.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have said why, it is quite evidently done to appeal to a certain minset who have their minds made up about these people, and what makes them tick, already.
A theatre writer would never get away with or expect to get away with such sterotyping in a serious drama.
Yes, theatre is a different medium, but not in this respect; veracity and credibility.

I'm sorry but this looks like you're side-stepping giving a proper answer again. Saying it is a stereotype because I think other people like watching steretypes does not answer how the writers have stereotyped the characters. It might explain why they did it, but certainly not how. I have no idea why you seem to think theatre writers are held to a different standard than tv writers.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again, I never criticised their ability as actors, but any number of people could have played these roles. They most certainly where picked for a particular reason, of that I have no doubt.

If they can embody the characters and portray them accurately then there is nothing wrong with casting them. Not all of the cast members are goodlooking and the ones that are aren't amazing A list standard. You seem to have a problem with an attractive person being cast in a gritty drama. As another poster said, there are goodlooking people in all walks of life.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I just did.

You didn't.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it though? The prostitute for instance, is she just another stereotype to gratitiously underline the 'grittiness' or a real person in a real situation?
The archtypeal 'whore with a heart'...jaysus!

No I don't think so. It really shows how disgusting the trafficking industry is. Archetypal whore with a heart? You can have a heart and be stuck in a bad situation. Do you think prostitutes are just robots without emotions?? The fact that they make the character 3 dimensional and give her real feelings and concerns makes her human and it does encourage the viewer to empathise with her and see prostitution in a negative light.

Siobhan is a good example of a character the audience empathises with who has been used and abused by a criminal who treated her like his personal playtoy. This in itself shows how the writer condemns her treatment. She is given airtime to show how badly traumatised she has become.

Precious flower

ViveLaVie wrote: »

That is not true. Did you read my post? I did not just say 'This doesn't concern me', I did say why I thought that. I laid out my reasons for why I think the debate on Darren's acting abilities is unfair, something you asked me directly. I also asked you to clarify what you meant when you said that the 'trick' was lazy and commented on how these tricks are used heavily in theatre, which you seem to think is immune to having its fair share of badly produced works.

You are not countering my argument. I laid out my reasons as to why I think Sheehan plays the character well. You did not respond and saying that I somehow argued it wasn't an issue for me is evading a proper response. If you disagree, outline why. Calling him too pretty is not responding to my post on his acting and character portrayal.




I'm sorry but this looks like you're side-stepping giving a proper answer again. Saying it is a stereotype because I think other people like watching steretypes does not answer how the writers have stereotyped the characters. It might explain why they did it, but certainly not how. I have no idea why you seem to think theatre writers are held to a different standard than tv writers.




If they can embody the characters and portray them accurately then there is nothing wrong with casting them. Not all of the cast members are goodlooking and the ones that are aren't amazing A list standard. You seem to have a problem with an attractive person being cast in a gritty drama. As another poster said, there are goodlooking people in all walks of life.




You didn't.



No I don't think so. It really shows how disgusting the trafficking industry is. Archetypal whore with a heart? You can have a heart and be stuck in a bad situation. Do you think prostitutes are just robots without emotions?? The fact that they make the character 3 dimensional and give her real feelings and concerns makes her human and it does encourage the viewer to empathise with her and see prostitution in a negative light.

Siobhan is a good example of a character the audience empathises with who has been used and abused by a criminal who treated her like his personal playtoy. This in itself shows how the writer condemns her treatment. She is given airtime to show how badly traumatised she has become.

Lads, please don't start this again. Last time the thread got locked for this reason.:( It's sending the thread off topic a bit too.

Mr E

Precious flower wrote: »

Lads, please don't start this again. Last time the thread got locked for this reason.:( It's sending the thread off topic a bit too.

Spot on, Precious Flower.

STOP. No more of this crap.

Final warning.

youtube!

Anyway moving on can someone tell me what happened in the first 20 odd minutes of the opening epidode of series 3?

Specifically

1) How is it that Nidge and Fran became friends, when Nidge rings up Fran for a bit of help in disposing of Gits body Fran (or Gary Busey jr as I call him:D) says something like no problem, I owe ya one, why?

2) Why are the IRA involved ,I didnt see head nor tail of them until Git attacked Elmo in the pub.

Just those 2 answers would help me fill in the gaps so maybe some nice person will let me know?

Lisha

youtube! wrote: »

Anyway moving on can someone tell me what happened in the first 20 odd minutes of the opening epidode of series 3?

Specifically

1) How is it that Nidge and Fran became friends, when Nidge rings up Fran for a bit of help in disposing of Gits body Fran (or Gary Busey jr as I call him:D) says something like no problem, I owe ya one, why?

2) Why are the IRA involved ,I didnt see head nor tail of them until Git attacked Elmo in the pub.

Just those 2 answers would help me fill in the gaps so maybe some nice person will let me know?

Fran needed money nidge gave him a loan
I think Fran was just out from jail I could be wrong

Ra shot aido for dealing but really cos he was slow paying up. Dano pulled trigger Git was cross as aido was good to pay up in general
Git assured nidge that it was a Mis understanding . Much to Darren disgust nidge let it go
Darren pipe bombed Git pub with out nige say so
To keep Git on side nidge went on paddy s dsy piss up with Git and dano
Then it all went wrong with rape and so on

youtube!

Lisha wrote: »

Fran needed money nidge gave him a loan
I think Fran was just out from jail I could be wrong

Ra shot aido for dealing but really cos he was slow paying up. Dano pulled trigger Git was cross as aido was good to pay up in general
Git assured nidge that it was a Mis understanding . Much to Darren disgust nidge let it go
Darren pipe bombed Git pub with out nige say so
To keep Git on side nidge went on paddy s dsy piss up with Git and dano
Then it all went wrong with rape and so on

Your a gem thanx!

TheBlock

Deleted User wrote: »

With you there. In the exact same way i think Elmo could well finish off Dazzler in the end. Maybe not this series but down the line

Think Nidge will try to finish Darren first. Whatever they say theres no mates when you get involved in this ****e. Darren started this with the Pipe Bomb and letting Elmo off has ****ed things up for Nidge with the with the RA lads and theres the fall out still to come from Tommy's hiding.

What happend to Lizzy no sign of her in last ep?

The Ra V Nidge V Fran in Series 4.

el diablo

TheBlock wrote: »

Think Nidge will try to finish Darren first. Whatever they say theres no mates when you get involved in this ****e. Darren started this with the Pipe Bomb and letting Elmo off has ****ed things up for Nidge with the with the RA lads and theres the fall out still to come from Tommy's hiding.

What happend to Lizzy no sign of her in last ep?

The Ra V Nidge V Fran in Series 4.

Lizzy was at the funeral in the last episode. Just a few seconds on screen I think.

Ash.J.Williams

Lizzy and Elmo know far too much

Frere Jacques

Her two brothers are RA she'll only be killed taking a bullet for Darren, probably as Darren and Siobhan make a run for the Ferry.
I'm rooting for Elmo. The only decent chap but should have done more for his cousin, (like not sign his death warrant).

Ash.J.Williams

youtube! wrote: »

Your a gem thanx!

as you can imagine Fran celebrated being released from prison in his usual manner!

PaulD77

Frere Jacques wrote: »

Her two brothers are RA she'll only be killed taking a bullet for Darren, probably as Darren and Siobhan make a run for the Ferry.
I'm rooting for Elmo. The only decent chap but should have done more for his cousin, (like not sign his death warrant).

Elmo decent?? Yea was real nice of him smashing the bottle of vodka over the barman's head, oh and as you mentioned, giving his cousin up to save himself :rolleyes: