All you Seinfeld haters: The characters were *supposed *to be unlikeable. When I explained this concept to my 75-year-old father in regard to Beavis and Butt-head, he practically joined their fan club.
My vote goes to Sideshow Mel. He can always be counted on to exclaim the obvious. I know it’s become kind of his shtick, but it’s still irritating.
Irritating now, or irritating when the show was fresh? For example, Mickey Rooney’s “Mr. Yunioshi” from Breakfast at Tiffany’s is pretty damn irritating to see now, but probably considered simply amusing at the time.
Slight hijack here, but I just don’t understand this concept. The characters are supposed to be unlikeable, so as long as I know that, I should like watching them?
Hey, I just made some cookies out of cow dung. They’re supposed to taste like shit, so therefore you should enjoy eating them?? Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Marie Romano - Everybody loves Raymond.
More like Everybody Should Go Over To Raymond’s House And Kick The Shit Out Of His Psycopath Of A Mother. I only watch in the hopes that Frank will finally smother her to death in her sleep. And then Robert takes his gun and ventilates the body. And Ray writes a Pulitzer-prize winning article about it while his wife dances naked on the bloodstains…
Adamn sandler in Little Nicky. All i could thing during the whole movies was “I wish I could slap him very hard, several times, with an iron gauntlet, with lots of spikes”
Yes, as long as the unlikeable characters get their comeuppance. The Seinfeld characters were jerks, but they were also miserable all the time, generally due to their own jerky behavior. Fun to watch!
Likewise, Beavis and Butthead may have caused people aggravation, but they always ended up getting their asses kicked/violently losing vital body parts/vomiting/choking
What’s funny about Megan Mullally, the actress who plays Karen on Will and Grace, is that 1) she doesn’t talk like that in real life, and 2) she’s quite attractive when she’s not in character. For some reason, I always assume that actors actually speak like their characters. Thank goodness Megan Mullally doesn’t–I’d have to do something terrible.
HelloKitty, Dawn Summers is the younger sister to Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.
Odieman. While I can understand Urkel, what’s the big deal with Barney? If you find him irritating, don’t worry about it: I mean, he’s purposely aimed at the three-year old set. My 15 month old little girl* adores Barney, which is quite alright: Barney teaches kids how to share, count, colors, shapes, etc and etc. and, most important, he isn’t preachy and he isn’t “cool.” He’s just a nice, goofy dinosaur that infants and toddlers like, he teaches them things they need to know, and, you know, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Sorry to “jump” you like this, but I feel as if my babys* taste has to be defended. Relatively new daddies are like this.
Oh, and another thing about Barney: he’s very nice and he is unthreatening, despite his size. That is why very young children relate to him - because Barney is safe and he’ll always be your friend.
I’ll second Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
The character, as written, is superfluous. As portrayed: irritating. This little brat boy could have ruined the whole franchise. With all the technology around them, and all the brilliant (as written) people, why did it have to be Wesley’s unhuman super genius that saved the day in the last five minutes of the episode? TPTB at Paramountmyleganddryhumpityoubastards even tried to explain away the poor characterization by throwing in a couple of shows where he is explained as the next step in Human evolution. Guess what? It didn’t work. Wesley Crusher is hated by 97.217% of all Trekkers. Here is the cite site.