I hate it when we go deep in a character (SPOILERS)

J

j0yfulxO

New member
I hate it when we go deep into a character's psyche or add more background to him. I just want to see them be funny, not make us feel sorry for them. Retcons go this way, too. For example.

Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated- In the season finale, we learn that Fred's life has possibly been a lie and several fates have befallen the gang, leading to a possible split-up for Mystery Inc. Plus we see the characters with their parents and in high school, instead of just showing them going to one interchangable mystery after another. Also compare Fred's dad from "Mystery Inc." to "Scooby-Doo: Pirates Ahoy" and notice Scooby speaking in full sentences.

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show- We learn that Eddy is such a jerk is so he can impress his older brother, who turns out to be an even bigger jerk. It's funnier to just have the Eds make scams and try to fit in rather than go into a deep, horrid personality.

Courage the Cowardly Dog- "Rememberance of Courage Past" shows how he got abandoned, which is very heartbreaking. What makes up for it is the happy ending of how he got adopted by Muriel. Also flashback scenes from "Curse of Shirley" and "Farmer Hunter, Farmer Hunted".

CatDog- Though I do like the special, "The Great Parent Mystery" can do this for some, as we like it when Cat and Dog try and scheme their way to the top.

King of the Hill- "A Rover Runs Through It" retcons Peggy's mother from basically an older Peggy into a total jerk (with a new appearance to match). It also establishes that the two haven't seen or spoken to each other in years, despite her meeting in episodes prior.

SpongeBob SquarePants- Some flashbacks, like in "Sing A Song Of Patrick" and "Blackjack".
 
I like when they do it, except when they do it in a bad way.

"A Rover Runs Through It" is one of the worst examples in all of KOTH. Whereas something like 'Nine Pretty Darn Angry Men" wouldn't work without knowing more about Hank and the other characters as well as we do. Character development can add quite a bit of depth to the humor that will keep viewers watching.
 
Some of these shows aren't pure comedy though, so it's arguable that the attempts to go deep aren't so inappropriate.

Even then, some entries like EE&E are movies/finale, so it kind of fits to take the direction they did.
 
I actually like it when writers develop their characters, even if it is a comedy-focused series. I've never seen Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show, but I think it's good that there is apparently some reason for Eddy's behavior. His behavior was one of the main reasons I never got into the show itself, along with that I didn't think it was really that funny to begin with. Revealing that he wanted to impress his older brother, whose even a bigger jerk than Eddy, does make him more human than if he was being mean just because he was greedy and selfish. Plus, it could make more people who watch the show feel sympathetic towards him and like/tolerate him more, which I'd imagine could be another purpose behind revealing that in the movie. While I agree that showing how Courage lost his family was heartbreaking, especially when he probably thought that they were dead all this time, showing a more detailed backstory than what we got in the opening explained why Courage would go through so much to save Muriel, despite being so afraid, beyond just loving her. I also like that CatDog special since it was nice to finally get a bit of their backstory after their occasional attempts to find their parents and where they came from during the series. Plus, I thought it was kind of cute that they both had similar behavior traits to their parents, which really can become more apparent as a person gets older. I remember Cat trying to scheme his way to the top and get what he wanted, but I don't recall that for Dog. He was the more content with life compared to Cat.

Anyway, I don't think that adding depth to a character in a comedy-driven series is bad. Even if you want to just laugh at the characters, I don't really see how developing their personalities or giving them backstory really takes any of the humor away. If anything, it could make them easier to connect with so that a person could have a more fun watching the show. It can be mishandled, such as when it completely alters a character's personality, but that might have more to do with the writers having issues with the continuity than with focusing on character's psyche. Like I mentioned earlier, it can also provide more context for a character's behavior so that their actions can be more understandable than before. While I want to have some laughter in comedy-driven series too, I'm not against writers trying to explore their characters to make them more interesting and/or develop their personalities with their backstories.
 
It really depends on the tone of the movie, short or series in question.
You would expect some extent of character development in an epic adventure series that takes itself seriously, but not for a 100% pure comedy that doesn't takes itself seriously.

For instance, one would expect character development and established back story to stick in, say, Avatar: The Last Airbender, but not in a Looney Tunes short, since they are intended to be episodic -you can watch one without wondering if you need to watch the whole series to understand a character.

That's NOT to say that comedy series aren't allowed or shouldn't have to give their characters have some kind of backstory to refer to. Candace Flynn's motivation of trying to bust Phineas and Ferb for example, stems from her own jealousy of not being able to do such feats herself. If you didn't know that about her, you'd wonder why this girl was so against the boys.

Even a LT short has done the very thing you're complaining about - A Hare Grows in Manhattan. We didn't need to know the backstory of Bugs Bunny's youth and see it in great detail, but within the context of the short it was needed, since Bugs was being interviewed. It wasn't 100% dead serious, since we got gags in that short, and it's often praised as one of the best LT shorts.

Also, both EE&E and Courage were never flat out comedies to begin with and continuity was always present in both.
 
Bugs had different backstories in "What's Up Doc?" and "The Old Grey Hare", but I never took them seriously.

Also, Candace did manage to build something great in "Best Lazy Day Ever", when she went crazy over the boys deciding not to something that day.
 
I'm kind of reminded of that line in Silence of the Lambs (the book): "Nothing happened to me. I happened."

To me, there are few things more unbearable in a cartoon than stopping the narrative to explain why the one-dimensional jerk is such a lousy person. I know that people (some people, anyway) subscribe to the theory that no one is a jerk for no reason, but, really, I just want to laugh at the funny drawings, not hear about Helga treats people like crap because her family doesn't pay attention to her, or why the utterly one-dimensional Bonnie is so obnoxious to Kim and Ron because her even more one-dimensional sisters (think about that for a moment) are so mean to her.

I suppose this can work if the moments were well-written and well-integrated enough, but, citing the two examples above, it doesn't.
 
Again, it's more a difference between drama and comedy. It usually works in a drama, but in a comedy, or even a DRAMEDY, it's much harder to execute since it can throw the tone of the show off completely. Unless it's done funny, it's difficult not to mess up some sympathy-begging backstory.
 
I understand that when this happens in a comedy show that it can be a bit offsetting but I can't think of any examples of it happening that made me look at the character any differently.



EEnE - While it was never explicitly stated that Eddy's brother was a jerk, there were some pretty huge clues. I never expected his brother to be kind.

Courage - This fits perfectly into Courage's character.
 
No, having 'funny funny funny' all the time for characters sounds boring, and rather shallow. I think variety is a good thing, but of course a lot depends on what's fitting for what show, how it's handled, etc. But there's a difference between disliking the 'deep backstory' in general and disliking certain ones in certain series.
 
When done well, as in shows like The Venture Bros., it adds depth to an otherwise two-dimensional series.

However, there are examples such as the first rescue arc in Bleach where the excessive amount of backstory completely derails the plot.
 
My two cents has already been repeated, but I'll say it again. It's too shallow if a character is one-dimensional and intended purely for comedy.
 
Am I allowed to dislike it if they just use it for the one episode, then have the character continue on as if the alleged humanizing never happened, 'cause that's pretty much what happened for the two examples I cited.

Worse yet, this engenders (in the soft, mushy, impressionable minds of the target audience...and some adults, strangely enough) this insane theory that whatever bad behavior the character indulges in can be excused because they had it rough.

"Oh, Helga's trying to drown Lila in the Tunnel of Love after finding out Lila can't swim, but that's okay. I understand her, now."
"Oh, Bonnie's hanging all over Ron and kissing him in front of Kim to cheese her off, but that's okay. I understand her, now."

Four dollars and what these people understand will buy you a gallon of gas. Not only did this "humanizing" not engender my sympathy for the characters, but, if anything, it made me dislike them way worse than before.

Now, this is just the worst case scenario. I'm not completely against humanizing characters, but the clumsy way it was done with these two does not speak well for it.
 
I never got how those three shorts contradicted each other. Sure, Old Grey Hare probably doesn't work, but having recently watched both A Hare Grows in Manhatten and What's Up Doc? go together fairly well.

Also, I like backstories. What's Up Doc? is my favorite Looney Tune!
 
Dislike whatever you want, but simply understanding or feeling sorry for a character isn't the same as believing they should get away for being bullies or snobs or whatever.
 
I actually enjoy the occassional character back story IF it's a good character, or there is a mysterious element to the character. Even the directors of the Looney Tunes shorts gave their characters minor background details to make their personalities pop. Usually these details are never explained, they are merely in place for the director to understand the character better.

What truely makes a character three dimensional to me is if the character is able to portray a full range of emotion, and his motivations are clear.

John P. McCann, writer for Animaniacs, Freakazoid, and other fine shows, told me to remember this for the characters

1.Who is the character

2.What motivates him

3.What stops him from getting it

4.Who is he to other characters

He also said that those are starting points for your character, as they generally become more believeable and appealing as time goes on, if well written.
 
That's kind of what I said: just because they had/have a bad time of it at home/growing up should not act as a pass for their bad behavior. Unfortunately, some people feel it does, especially for Bonnie, which irks the ever-loving crap out of me.
 
Have you seen all of Hey Arnold? Helga isn't just a "one-dimensional" bully like you said. She lashes out at Arnold a lot, but in truth she has a deep crush on him. And that episode explains how and why she has complicated feelings. And that's not the only episode that details why either. There are episodes that hint at the effect of her father's favoring of her sister over her. Showing an early bad childhood of someone like Helga is in no way justifying bad behavior. It just show the viewer an explanation of how they got to that point in the first place. But I"m really struggling to see how or why what they go through would make one hate them more. I would think it'd be worse if they had no reason for their behavior in the first place.
 
Eh, I actually felt this was a fitting plot for them to do, considering it was the series finale (well, the first half of the final episode at least). It had Courage confronting his past, bringing his character full-circle from a terrified abandoned puppy to a brave (yet somewhat nervous) dog. The second half of the finale also reinforced this.
 
Total Drama was flip-flop with this. Either develop them then suddenly derail them or keep them two-dimentional.

An example: Izzy never really that two-dimentional, she actually has had limits, like how angry she was at Owen in the horror-themed episode, which actually got carried to the next episode. She showed a tiny but of sadness at one point in the first TDA Aftermath, (it then turned into a gag), and even was the the most sane person of the team at one point.
 
Back
Top