Problems with Love/Hate.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't think it is unrealistic to ask that a major character be a little better drawn than a default stereotype. Especially when Carolan asserts that he wants to show that these families are just like every other family.
To me it is no accident that the series has been criticised for pandering to middle class pre-conceptions when you see writing like this.

Its RTE ffs they have 6 episodes to play with . Stop holding the show to unrealistic HBO standards !!! . If Git and Danno were stereotypically drawn its down to the fact they had a core cast of popular characters(its their families Carolan is referring to in your quote) to service, a plot to roll out and only 6 episodes to do it in, and not some deep seated prejudice or poor decision making on the writers part.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you looked at their initial meeting again? There is no replusion on Georgina's part. We'll wait and see if anybody else agrees.

Whatever about their initial meeting she is quite clearly uncomfortable the second time around as evidenced by the awkward silence that preceded him filling it by asking for a cuppa(just for something to say) and the fact she turned her cheek when he went to kiss her on the lips(and he did aim for her lips) , when you look back at the initial meeting through the prism of that scene it's quite clear she was just making small talk not flirting with him.

Happyman42 wrote: »

He wasn't a true protrayal (by the writer) as a character. I didn't buy him at all, not just as a killer.

what are you trying to say here ?? you don't buy him as a human being at all ? that no one person could have all the attributes his character has ?? you've not been very clear here . If so, if you are trying to say there are too many conflicting aspects to his character is that not at odds with your general complaint about the one dimensionality of a lot of the characters on the show ?

I'd just like to weigh in here as a female and say that I too think that Georgina had an obvious lack of interest in Nidge. In the first encounter she did seem friendly towards him and he was clearly attracted so I surmised that an affair storyline was on the way. However, the writer deliberately plays with audience perception a lot on this show and this was no different. He introduced a subtext here that wasn't followed through and it became evident Georgina's initial friendliness was borne out of politeness. She had no interest in Nidge and was rather repulsed by his obvious advances. In an interesting twist, she ended up with Tommy and it made a lot of sense when looking at her backstory and vulnerability that she was drawn to him because of his gentle and kind demeanour towards her.

The writer did this again with the finale. Everyone assumed Nidge's time was up but yet again events took an unexpected turn. However, looking back it was all foreshadowed and makes perfect sense that it would play out in this fashion.

Regarding Git's nickname I am of the opinion that Git was deliberately chosen because it is an authentic and realistic nickname for Christopher and it does connote his true nature i.e. he is a bit of a git. However I believe this to be another example of good writing. Lots of good writers name their characters suggestively and the name itself implies the character's true nature. This is a common literary device and is not an example of bad writing at all.

People are taking this very seriously.

Happyman42 wrote:

I watched the second meeting and there is absolutely no replusion.

We will just have at agree to disagree.

in the season finale of Boardwalk Empire there was no reference to Van Alden or Eddie, so things like this happen with HBO as well

Charlie Murphy wasn't mentioned in the finale of Misfits, I think I better start a thread about that

bajer100 wrote: »

People have said that they are thankful that this topic has been taken offline from the main Love/Hate threat - because topics like this would only be likely to detract from the main topic! I'd actually be obliged if the same people stopped hating on the Happy fella and actually addressed the issued - namely that this show was ****! I posted a few pages back why I thought this show was terrible and no body bothered responding.

Maybe your point was simply taken and people just moved on. (take note Happyman42)

On your point though, I can't understand why people bother watching something they find 'shít' or 'terrible'.

TheNinthGate wrote: »

The nightclub scene was the first time Georgina knew Nidge was married, up until then she was weighing up options, then she saw the big inner city head on Trish and decided against it.

It WAS pretty surprising that she almost fell in love at forst sight with the bould tommy though. My own wife fancies Tommy though, so I do understand where it came from.

Go easy on Trish there, she's a fine bit of stuff

pithater1 wrote: »

Great show in fairness but my main gripe with it is the lack of realism in the locations of the scenes.

Example 1: In season 2 it was mentioned that Aido lived in North Wall, Darren making it from the Gibson Hotel to Aido's flat so quickly in the latest episode would highlight that. Why though was Aido's flat filmed deep in Dublin 8 (Darren's frequent wanders up Meath Street highlight this)?

Example 2: Nidge's trip to Dundalk. Aside from the shots of the Boyne Bridge no other venue in County Louth appears. The hotel was near Liffey Valley, the house was in Blanch and the garage is off the N7.

Where it's set and where its filmed are completely different things.
99%+ of the time in TV/Film these locations won't be geographically 'realistic'.

Basil3 wrote: »

Just read through most of this thread, and have to say I agree with a lot of the points brought up.

For me, having never heard of the show before a few months ago (I'm not Irish and I live somewhat in my own little bubble!), I decided to marathon through all the episodes to catch up to the current series and see what everyone is talking about.

Having watched it all very quickly, I found that characters changed personality way too quickly for my liking (particularly Darren and Nidge). I guess this comes with each series being so short.

My main gripe is that I really don't care for any of the characters. Any one of them could get clipped and I wouldn't give a damn. Maybe Siobhan is about the only one I have any compassion for. I know you get to see a funny side to some of the characters, but they generally have no redeeming qualities. Other shows I have enjoyed have explored the many different dimensions to a character a lot better, and you can see that even the 'bad guys' have some kind of redeeming qualities. To me, Nidge has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, Darren would be 'nice' to people sometimes, Fran would say a couple of funny lines, but they are the only real positives I can think of. I guess you could argue that that's how gangland type people are, and fair enough.

In any case, I enjoy the series, it gives me something to talk to my clients about on a Monday morning, and I'll no doubt be tuning in to watch it next year.

Yep, did pretty much the same as yourself. Watched all three seasons back to back.

First, the good stuff. Yes, it's light years ahead of 99% of what RTE serves up. The characters are well delineated and we can argue about their motives and relationships, but Stuart Carolan does a good job of establishing plot and character development. It moves along at a clip and you're nothing if not interested in what comes next.

And then there's the other stuff. I don't know how much to lay at the casting agent's door, but they're individually and collectively the least convincing group of hard-boiled inner city gangsters I can think of. Robert Sheehan is charismatic but looks less like a natural-born killer and more like a reserve member of One Direction. Tom Vaughan Lawlor is decent as a weaselly underling, but none-too-convincing as a gangland colossus. Every time I looked at Aiden Gillan, I kept wondering why he wasn't sorting out the education system in Baltimore, but that's my fault rather than his. The best cast character for me is Susan Loughnane as Debbie - equal parts glamour and hopelessness.

The first season was, as more than a few people have pointed out, a D4 version of the inner city. Nobody swore, most people lived in the suburbs and the accents were all over the place. I half-expected to hear someone say "I'm going to clip the bostord, roysh?"

The second season and third seasons over-compensated. We had bacchanalian drug fueled parties in zingy slo-mo with the loudest soundtrack possible. Enough ketchup to keep Heinz in business for generations. Darren's evolution into a cold-blooded killer was ludicrous and I never really bought into Tommy as irresistible fanny-magnet. Every time a gangster's moll threw themselves at him, I found myself saying "Really?".

Bottom line, it tries too hard. The actors when interviewed will talk of its "gritty realism", but for all that, Love/Hate never feels like it's got dirt under its fingernails.

Its strength is also its weakness. One writer and only two directors in three seasons (David Caffrey's directed 13 episodes, Anthony Byrne 3). If the language and realistic interaction for a particular scene or set-up is beyond their experience or research, they hit thunderous bum notes.

The only other thing is a lack of conceptual cohesion, especially surprising considering it's basically a two man (Carolan and Caffrey) band. Most gangster series will have their lairs (the office in The Sopranos, the open-air centre of the low-rises in The Wire), whereas Love/Hate just has location shoots. There's also an issue of connectivity between gangland and wider society. If you don't show where the money or drugs go and how gangland impacts outside of itself, it lacks context.

And please God they'll choose a music policy other than "This sounds cool for this scene." The Wire had the booming sound of urban America for inner city Baltimore and the sentimental Irishness of The Pogues for the local police bar, Kavanaghs.

Love/Hate borrows that hip-hop soundtrack (thereby inviting comparisons with The Wire), but also throws in some techno, some Dubliners, and whatever you're having yourself missus.

Like I said, it tries too hard and it often feels like its aping other shows. Apart from that, it's great.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now that the season is over, can I say first off, well done to Octagon and RTE for bringing this series to the screen. It's a landmark series in terms of it's treatment of the subject matter and in it's production values and in terms of the audience it garnered for our national broadcaster. It cannot be ignored that a huge leap has been made here, but is it fully in the right direction?
It doesn't tick all the boxes to be considered a fully rounded out piece imo and I am interested in others opinions as to why that is. I don't think I am the only one who is disappointed at the missed chances here from a writing point of view and that is the element I am interested in.


All the way through it has sarcrificed credibility to entertainment and style, and pandered to it's core audiences predjudices, it has relied heavily on one dimensional stereotypes (e.g. Dano and eventually his boss)and whether purposely or unconciously it has portrayed a deeply misogynist additude, with the women as moveable feasts to the male storylines (this hierarchy in the story seems to be purposeful when you look at the posters which depict the 4 lead males of the story) most ridiculously in the scene where Siobhan offered herself sexually to Darren - suddenly the reality of her situation was less important than depicting Darrens moral dilemnas.
Looking at the fansites on FB and elsewhere it seems that the most anticipated thing was 'who was gonna get clipped' and the weekly 'gory episode' of violence or the latest sexist quote from Fran, which is fine if that is your thing, but was it right that they relied heavily on this aspect in the series, that sees itself as a serious drama? It seemed to me that it was the default remedy for characters who couldn't be given any more depth or nuance. For instance, the writers seemed to have completely run out of ideas for Darren, to such an extent that he wandered about a full episode and a half without any real connection to the story, they even lost interest in his wardrobe.
They ran out of ideas too for where to take the story of the prostitute and Tommy so they rendered him unconcious and left the story at that, no reference to the prostitute (I can't even remember her name, which says something in itself) who featured heavily in the season and never warranted even a passing reference as to what was happening to her in the final episode. She was that big a character that they devoted a whole opening to her situation. It seemed to me, that like the treatment of other women in the series, (they seemed to be either there for titilation, or to round out male attitudes rather than characters in their own rights) her role turned out to be merely gratuitious. They curiously developed Aido's thing with birds in the last episode, which also went nowhere as part of the continuing story but not one reference to a major storyline in series? Very curious and revealing of the intent imo.
These are just a few of the issues I have with it. I think there was an awful lot to commend here from an acting and directorial point of view. I have my own scale as to how big these flaws where but that isn't really all that important, I would just think it is important to open a discussion and hear others views on these admittedly 'finer points'.

That's taking political correctness too far. The truth is, and I don't mean to offen any women, but men make the most interesting characters, and 99.9% of all famous people in history have been men. Pop stars I'm excluding - just tyrants, inventors etc. So it would be pointless giving a strong charter in the series.

Next, it is a woeful pro gramme, so far removed from the truth. Its as badly acted as Fair City and dreadful scripts that just go for shock value and OTT violence. Its a teenagerss show really, like Die Hard with bad language and OTT scenes to sell a bereft of intelligence show.

It does show up the lower class though - and shines a light on how bad their reality is. My sister is a social worker and the horror stories she tells me is incredible. Most of these people are illiterate and brought up on a diet of drugs and violence. Perhaps Love/Hate could do more to highlight these unfortunate issues these poor creatures face in terrible living conditions.