There is an interesting historical parallel to this phenomenon in kabuki, a famous form of theatre in Japan. In 1629, female actresses were banned from kabuki for being “too erotic”, whereupon young boys and later adult men (known as onnagata) took on the roles of female characters in their place. And according to this article:
It seems like even ~300 years ago, people were not able to separate the actors from their characters.
For the record, I am not perplexed by the appetite for these off-screen relationships to mirror on-screen storytelling. I acknowledged as much in the OP.
What confuses and irritates me is the denial of reality in which people are explicitly told that there is no off-screen romance by the performers themselves, and the believers continue to insist that their fantasy perception takes precedence.
I went to a science fiction convention and an actor from my favorite show, Babylon 5, was a guest speaker. He had once been on a TV soap opera and he said scifi fans have a better grasp on reality that soap fans do. He said if you play a bad guy on a soap the fans hate you, the actor, as well as the character, and they find it difficult to seperate the two. He said scifi fans just clap you on the shoulder and tell you you did a good job.
I recall (from the 90s) a soap opera actor telling a story that he was in a supermarket checkout line and a woman in the line recognized him and slapped him because he was a jerk in the soap opera.
I think this says a lot about the general intelligence of most people. As George Carlin once noted, “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
I feel like I have to post this famous scene from Friends:
Very much like post #2. Oops
Interesting. I don’t doubt the actor’s facts, but I wonder about his conclusion of “better grasp on reality”.
I wonder how much that has to do with soap operas being set in relatively ordinary surroundings whereas SF is set in pretty exotic surroundings.
It takes a great degree of willing suspension of disbelief to get into an e.g. Babylon 5 episode than an e.g. General Hospital episode. Said another way, there’s a higher barrier to entry to enjoying Babylon 5. The folks who can do that are probably also better able to separate Actor X from the character they portray. IMO it’s similar mental circuitry working to a different end.
Later, when pregnant, she reportedly wore a shirt that said “This Is Not James Garner’s baby”. Which not only took the joke uncomfortable too far, but also make her look like a hussy, cheating on her husband, James.
Not to mention that it shows that these people have NO capability to grasp the perspective of the performer in question, and not just realize they aren’t the fictional character, but that they have a life away from the camera and deserve some dignity and privacy far away from clueless intrusive fans.
[I have met one celeb far away from any place you might expect to meet one, the old Trailblazers power forward Maurice Lucas on an airplane. Got up the gumption to get his autograph, signed and appended with the word “peace”…note I was a Sixer’s fan at the time-if it was Doc Erving I probably would have fainted long before getting close to him]
This being the SDMB I must point out that that’s not correct.
Suppose you could measure intelligence in a 0-100 scale.
If you have 3 persons, with 51,51 and 03 in their int attribute, the average is 105 / 3 = 35.
Thus 2/3 of the population are smarter than average.
This being the SDMB it is literally correct.
Look up what an average is. A literal “average” person is, by definition, in the middle.
ETA: I may be conflating that with “median.”
The way I heard it, there were three shirts, “I am not Mrs. James Garner”, “I am not James Garner’s baby”, and “I am not James Garner”; worn, respectively, by Mariette, her baby, and her husband.
Her chemistry with Garner in the commercials was so good that she got a guest role on The Rockford Files.
The problem is if you say “Think of how stupid the median person is…” half the people you’re talking to won’t get it…
Wait, you mean those guys that stand in the middle of the road, begging or selling water? Yeah, that always seems stupidly dangerous to me…
In math/stats class average = mean
In ordinary conversation with ordinary people if you want to describe the average income of
Mr. Penury $0
Mr. Moderately Poor $15,000
Mr. Comfortable $25,000
Mr. Carnegie $200,000,0000
You will not find $50,010,000 to be an acceptable or meaningful answer. It’s one of those “peanut is not a nut” things.
Are you saying don’t be mean?
Very average attempt at humor.
OTOH, the reality of IQ distribution is that it is a normal = Gaussian curve. It is NOT a grossly skew distribution like wealth or income is.
And under that specific situation, the average AKA mean, the median, and the mode are all very close to each other at the colloquial “center” of the distribution. And that center, plus/minus a bit on either side describes the “typical” common case.
So Carlin’s memorable quip is mathematically valid given the kind of distribution he applied it to.