On this day, I make FrozNlite proud.

Do I think that Glee is good television, if good television is defined as containing a riveting, original plot? Hell no. But that doesn't mean the series can't exist, and be enjoyed, for its entertainment value. Plus, the whole aspect of a major national television show performing covers of not only popular songs in contemporary culture but musical songs as well as brand new. That's one of the reasons I enjoy it, along with many of my thespian friends: for the first time in nearly half a century, the musical is making a comeback in pop culture, thanks to the hype it gets on the show. You can't say it's a bad thing that an enormous amount of people who discovered Defying Gravity and Idina Menzel for the first time from this show, if such people become interested in that genre of music, considering musicals, regardless of what you may think of them, contain actual music. My point is, there are some good points to the show that are original.

The problem isn't that Glee lacks original content. The problem is that the story behind Glee is driven by bad plot devices that are used in cheesy afternoon t.v. romance dramas.

1. Tanya wants Rick to marry her, but knows that she has no shot at making it happen because she is not as charming as Lisa. Angry and frustrated at the fact that she will never have a shot at the man of her dreams, she begins to conspire a plot. At a dinner party, Tanya slips a little drug into Rick's drink and then begins to seduce him. They have sex and Tanya claims that she is pregnant. Rick takes responsibility for his actions and agrees to marry Tanya. He breaks up relationships with Lisa and falls into depression. Right before they marry, Lisa finds out that Tanya isn't really pregnant. She has been using a pregnancy pouch the entire time and was planning to adopt a child. Lisa bursts in while they are doing vows and Rick breaks off the wedding. He takes Lisa in his big strong arms and they go off in a white stretch limousine where the ending screen credits roll behind a warm rising sun in the horizon.

2. High School Musical is a story about two high school juniors from rival cliques – Troy Bolton (Zac Efron), captain of the basketball team, and Gabriella Montez (Vanessa Hudgens), a beautiful and shy transfer student who excels in math and science. Together, they try out for the lead parts in their high school musical, and as a result, divide the school. Despite other students' attempts to thwart their dreams, Troy and Gabriella resist peer pressure and rivalry, inspiring others along the way not to "stick to the status quo".

The reason why people like the show is because it's bad. It's supposed to be a guilty pleasure. It's almost as amoral as sticking kittens into a microwave oven and watching them die. Except the kitten would be doing something cute or maybe dancing to a sing-along, before its fur begins to catch on fire and nothing remains but ash at the end of the performance. I've watched several Broadway plays: Wicked, Fiddler on the Roof, and Mamma Mia! are some of the ones that I remember watching off the top of my head. If musicals become obsolete, then that is an issue that musicals have to deal with. Music alone does not make a good stage production. It is dependent on the quality of the screen writing, the actors who are on stage, and the sincerity of the message. Glee is a plot riddled with amnesia, stereotypes, and non-character based performances. Glee is bad and that is why people like it.

May I ask as well what you'd like to see with character progression? It sounds to me like you believe the show is too predictable, which honestly, I agree with. But then again so are a lot of popular television shows, once you've watched enough episodes (ex. Law and Order SVU. Each episode tells a fantastic story with great acting, etc., but they all follow the same basic plot flow). Does that make bad television? Those who decide what's good TV by doling out Emmys don't seem to think so, as L&O SVU is coming back for a 12th season next year, with multiple Emmy wins in its time on the air. So then, what do you want in character progression? When you list what you find wrong with the show ("But at the end of the day..."), all you're really doing is listing who people are. I agree some people could change a bit more (like Santana and Brittany), but a lot of characters DID do a lot of growing this season, especially during the second half, and again, you're listing "gay" as something that should be changed. He's getting a boyfriend next season, so no worries - character development.

I'm sorry. It's the end of the first season. It took House five seasons before he started to show a huge shift in behavior. I just dislike the cliched characters and the over dramatized High School environment. I also don't hate the fact that Kurt is a gay character. I hate the fact that Chris Colfer is the walking, talking epitome of a gay stereotype. Certain critiques believe that Sue alludes to an underlying premise of the show. The fact that the whole entire show is a parody off of High School, social cliques, and ideological groups. If this is true, then Kurt is nothing more than an embodiment of a misunderstanding for mainstream America: having gays as individuals who get angry over not getting the "female role" to "Defying Gravity" or his portrayal as an amorous individual who has Finn on the mind.

Oh, and about that as well: if you're going to list the inadequate rehashings a show does with plot themes, I'd like to see you equally list the innovative and truly original aspects. Let me help get you started: this is the first time on national television a gay teen has been open in a high school setting, with potential on-screen romance next season also adding a layer of unprecedented mold-breaking to the list.

Gay people should have higher standards for themselves. While gay people are celebrating over getting a supporting actor in an over-dramatized television show, black people are rejoicing at having an inept black president running America. Funny how we denounce discrimination, yet endorse it when it potentially benefits selective favortism in a fucked up society.

Hey guys? What section are we in? Oh, right.

The FUNhouse.

Hey guys? What section are we in? Oh, right.

The FUNhouse.

So post some animu girls and get on with life.

Hey guys? What section are we in? Oh, right.

The FUNhouse.

I don't know about you, but I'm having fun in this thread.

So post some animu girls and get on with life.
-snip-

Could you please put spoiler tags on that image. It is quite large.

-snip-

Amen.
I tried to watch glee, and it was actually kind of funny. But, it was extremely predictable, and did not hold my attention for very long. I ended up just doing/watching something else before the episode even finished.

The reason why people like the show is because it's bad. It's supposed to be a guilty pleasure. It's almost as amoral as sticking kittens into a microwave oven and watching them die. Except the kitten would be doing something cute or maybe dancing to a sing-along, before its fur begins to catch on fire and nothing remains but ash at the end of the performance.

This is pure win right here.

-snip-

I actually agree with many of your contentions, Swerve, but say that some people don't like the show because it's bad, because the word "bad" signifies something taboo and undeserving of one's time and effort. You hit the reason in the next sentence: it's a guilty pleasure. So, now that you've made your argument, is the show bad? Yes, overall it's not the best show out there. But it definitely does some things right now and then that keep people, myself included, hooked.

I'd say thank god not every idea for television, film, novel, and other media has been signed on produced, or else we'd be in over our heads with shit and appreciate shows like Glee a lot more, but then I remember how Nicholas Sparks has, what, 2? 3? of his books published into film? I may be a more lenient critic than you, Swerve, but there's no denying when something truly sucks.

I'm sorry. It's the end of the first season. It took House five seasons before he started to show a huge shift in behavior. I just dislike the cliched characters and the over dramatized High School environment. I also don't hate the fact that Kurt is a gay character. I hate the fact that Chris Colfer is the walking, talking epitome of a gay stereotype. Certain critiques believe that Sue alludes to an underlying premise of the show. The fact that the whole entire show is a parody off of High School, social cliques, and ideological groups. If this is true, then Kurt is nothing more than an embodiment of a misunderstanding for mainstream America: having gays as individuals who get angry over not getting the "female role" to "Defying Gravity" or his portrayal as an amorous individual who has Finn on the mind.

Gay people should have higher standards for themselves. While gay people are celebrating over getting a supporting actor in an over-dramatized television show, black people are rejoicing at having an inept black president running America. Funny how we denounce discrimination, yet endorse it when it potentially benefits selective favortism in a fucked up society.

I'm going to put these two together since they sort-of deal with similar issues. First off, thank you for your opinions in the first paragraph. I'd like to ask a few more questions as well in this discussion: Is it truly an issue to create an entire story focused on the life and times of high school? Admittedly, there has been a profusion of high-school related shows and movies recently since High School Musical, similar to the explosion of vampire-related media following the mainstream craziness over Twilight. But all of these media, while portraying the stereotypical roles and labels of high school students, all show each and every one from a different angle. Is this not good? Everyone experiences high school differently, and while some may adorn some labels here or there, very few can be characterized by them. Therefore, is it not appropriate to show these exceedingly different characters in mainstream media as role models for young people? Now I'm not condoning the continued creation of high school parodies for the remainder of time to give every specific high school student a role model (and I'm sure you can agree with me that it's getting a bit monotonous now), but it's important to characterize as many people out there as possible, if it means making those people real in the eyes of the general public. Life is not the easiest for those who feel invisible.

Finally, regarding your analysis of gays in television: I do completely agree that gay people should have higher standards for themselves, but let me remind you that some gays are still censored in the Western world, like General Blue in the Dragon Ball anime. Change, sadly, doesn't occur in the lifespan of a television season. It's the path-pavers of minorities in media that led the way for their modern infusion in media, which will lead the way for their future diversity. It's been 54 years since the first gay character premiered on television, and today when we have so many stereotypical flamboyant queens on mainstream television it's well-understood some gays act that way. But the times are already changing, as just two years ago an episode of Law & Order SVU featured a masculine, gay NFL star quarterback. Our standards are high, and they're slowly being met. And in the end, you're incorrect about the celebration. Gays and blacks aren't celebrating over Kurt Hummel and Barack Obama as lone symbols of a desperate hope, but rather as bricks paving forward along the widening path.

I don't watch Glee because:

a) It's a musical (and musicals bores me)
b) I think:
-Smallville
-Angel
-That 70's Show
would be all I ever need to watch on TV
c) This one girl I know IRL dragged me to see some GIRL that's on Glee, and she was in my town or some crap. She dragged my arms. Ok, so it wasn't that bad to be dragged by a hot chick, but that's not the point.

Other than that, I can't give an actual valid reason. I don't hate Glee, because I can't say I hate something without trying at least once, but from some of the previews and scenes I've seen via YouTube, it doesn't look like something I'm interested in. Though I can't bash it. I usually watch shows on TV for two things: Action, or Comedy

I'd like to ask a few more questions as well in this discussion: (a) Is it truly an issue to create an entire story focused on the life and times of high school? Admittedly, there has been a profusion of high-school related shows and movies recently since High School Musical, similar to the explosion of vampire-related media following the mainstream craziness over Twilight. But all of these media, while portraying the stereotypical roles and labels of high school students, all show each and every one from a different angle. Is this not good?

(a) I like reading many stories that have a high school setting, simply because I know that it is not going to really be about high school.

The fictional portrayal of high school has taken on its own identity. Football players and cheerleaders are the most popular people and represent an irresponsible application of that power through abusing those that are of lower social status. Geeks and small social clubs are on the bottom rung of a social ladder where they are shunned by most of the school. The only escape they have is through their studies, getting deeply involved in their club activities, and being the underdogs who show the school that they deep down they are really, “cool kids”. The lessons behind these messages is usually very asinine. In the end, the presentation illustrates that everyone can be cool regardless of what activities they choose to do and who they hang out with.

When Avatar came out, the infamous Pocahontas comparison soon came out afterwards showing that the two movies were similar.

 Spoiler

I brought this up because I wanted to segway into the fact that the high school genre is often used in order to uncover themes that have been presented in other works. In Pride and Prejudice, the story surrounds Elizabeth as she is a heroine who wants to marry for love instead of improving her family’s social and financial standing. In the turn of the 19th century, social standings existed among different families.

it illustrates that the pervading themes aren’t dependent on setting, characters, or even the timeline when the story takes place. What we fall in love with are the underlying themes that a piece of literature presents. The high school

I never hung out with the captain of the football team, but he didn’t seem like a jerk when I passed him in the hallways. The head cheerleader was in my AP classes and she wasn’t snotty or materialistic. My friend was a linebacker on the football team and we would talk about RPGs all the time. To be honest, I was part of a school where the cliques were quite broken. Everyone intermingled with one another and no one really cared about who you hung out with or what you enjoyed doing. The life and times of school for me were all about hanging out with different groups of people and having fun in the process.

-- rough draft. I won't finish a complete response. Sorry, it's nothing against you.

 I would kindly like to point out that

this thread has been successfully trolled.

If we're going to be serious...

I find the whole fictional high school thing to be completely stupid. It's never accurate, at least not to my experiences. For example, I don't think anyone I know cares about who's on the football team or is a cheerleader. It's not like it has some elite status or anything.

Furthermore, there are some people that I know to be on the football team (and a lot more if you include all the other sports) in my honors classes. I have no idea why people still use these sterotypes that probably weren't accurate decades ago when they were made.