It’s just crazy. I think I paid between 12 and 20 per season. $100? $380! I mean, I like the show, but come on! It was just Banacek.
“There’s an old Polish Proverb: You don’t have to stick your head in the kitchen to know those prices stink.”
And, back to the point of the thread - Banacek sure treated Jay poorly. It was like he kept him around as a “dummy” so Banacek could seem smarter, or something. It wasn’t like he was good in a fight, or made a good sounding board for theories on the case. He didn’t treat Carly well, either, but at least she could hold her own against him. Most of the time.
Yeah, Banacek was pretty smug with Jay, but then Jay wasn’t much of a chauffeur. In the episode with the missing airplane, didn’t he gamble away the money he was supposed to rent a car with and they had to drive around the desert in a Jeep?
And I got a definitely manipulative vibe from Carly; pretending to be Banacek’s friend (or whatever) only when it suited her. His treatment of her seemed to be to smugly see through her schemes and give her enough rope to hang herself.
Bond is capable of rushing an armed man when he himself is unarmed, and taking the gun away from him. But villains or their henchmen aren’t when they are facing Bond.
Whatever the threat, killing an unarmed man who is not actively attacking you when you have a gun on him is pretty much verboten for any conventional protagonist who is supposed to be a good guy. Heroes are supposed to knock the guy out, tie him up, or otherwise incapacitate him, not kill him, even if this represents some risk to themselves. And I still think that Bond just killing him rather than calling for backup was stupid in destroying a possible source of information about No.
I also thought that Bond was incredibly stupid in the opening of the most recent film, Spectre. He tries to take control of an escaping helicopter right over the Day of the Dead celebrations in the main square in Mexico City. If he had crashed the helicopter, which he almost did a dozen of times, he would have killed hundreds of people. Insanely reckless.
No, I haven’t. And there are plenty of cynical amoral antiheroes who break the rules. But at least in the initial movies I think we’re *supposed *to regard Bond as a good guy.
The main character of “Hey Arnold!” Arnold, is basically your typical every-kid straight-man character amid a sea of crazy and unique supporting characters. Every character would go to him for advice or problem solving and he’d fix the situation within the 12 minutes of the normal episode.
This lasted for the first three seasons and while virtuous it never seemed annoying. However for some reason during the last two seasons the writers apparently picked-up on this and tried to “fix” the character by making him being too-virtuous as a character flaw and wound up pulling it way too hard in the opposite direction. Character would point out he moralized too much and butted into people’s business a lot but instead of making Arnold a more grounded character it just made everyone else seem to be an even dumber jerk than they were immediately as they wound up making messes even worse on their own. You could argue that they did this deliberately to show Arnold being right-all-along but there’s no such thing as there’s later episodes that deliberately show Arnold being an out-of-character sanctimonious ass for no real reason who also winds up getting the other kids in trouble half the time.
Ralph Cramden (Jackie Gleason) on the Honeymooners wasn’t meant to be exactly virtuous. He was kind of selfish - always scheming to put one over on his wife - but it was basically harmless stuff like wanting to go to a lodge meeting instead of visiting his mother in law. He was meant to be a basically decent but flawed guy. Except that at the end of every episode he threatened to hit his wife.
James Kirk was an heroic good guy… who more than once took huge risks with the lives of his entire crew to save one or two people, usually because he had a close friendship with that person or persons.
Delenn in Babylon 5 came off as someone who was supposed to be very sweet and virtuous, tough on her enemies but kind to her friends. But I always saw her as very manipulative and self-serving in her personal relationships, and I really got the vibe that she wasn’t nearly as good for Sheridan as we were supposed to see. I can’t point to exact examples (it’s been 15 years since I watched the show last), but I remember being really put off by her near-deification.
I think that one has more to do with the show getting dated than the creators missing their mark - domestic violence is considered a very serious issue today, but at the time of the show it was a minor thing suitable for light jokes. Audiences at the time generally didn’t see it as a big deal, very unlike today. I think ‘characters that seem like jerks today but weren’t seen that way at the time’ could be an interesting thread too.
See through today’s eyes, Gone With The Wind’s hero Rhett Butler is a criminal, a pimp, a murderer, very violent, and a stalker (He says to Scarlett “I thought I could make you love me.”) When he suddenly decides Scarlett doesn’t love him, he transfers his attentions to their four year old daughter!!
He supports Belle Watling and her “girls,” admitting to “setting her up in business.” He admits to killing two people (a Negro who was “uppity to a white woman” and a Yankee in a bar fight.) He’s also amazingly hypocritical, helping Scarlett step outside the rules of society and then criticizing her for not following those rules and becoming Mr. Confederate flag himself.
