I think he was likable but the problem was he was too much of a loser. Every episode they made us think he was on the verge of a breakthrough that never materialized. You can't have a protagonist who constantly loses like he did. It's frustrating and masochistic.

All I wanted him to do was discover punk rock but instead he proved to be little more than a complete f( )ckup.

@Invidia said:

Was it about the ERA of PUNK ROCK???

If so, then where were the PUNK ROCK hair styles???

Did I say it was?

https://www.amazon.com/Scenester-Costume-Punk-Spiked-Black/dp/B001D6L5OK/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1529525516&sr=8-8&keywords=punk+rock+hair+styles

Thanks for the link but I'm old enough to have known actual punks and skinheads.

Protagonist and antagonist

Protagonist, antagonist. A protagonist is the main character in a drama. Technically, there can only be one protagonist in a drama, though writers often use the word in reference to two or more central characters. The antagonist is the main character’s chief opponent. Protagonist, antagonist - Grammarist

I know what a protagonist is as per my proper usage of the word in my prior post.

Yes it felt more like watching a REALITY show about the downfall of a DRUG ADDICT than it felt like watching a work of fiction.

Because IF he's suppose to be the PROTAGONIST, then WHO is the ANTAGONIST that works against him to defeat him???

Basically it seems as if he was at WAR with himself instead of with someone else???

Sigh... yes, sometimes the antagonist is the protagonist themselves. I'm not 12 years old, thanks.

One is so repulsed by what's happening that one can't root for him???

That was exactly the problem for many in the audience. But some of us liked him and were hopeful he would DO "something" besides be a huge f( )ckup in every episode.

@Invidia said:

Whatever the case may be, one really has NO IDEA what went wrong and has merely put forth some suggestions about what MAY HAVE happened.

I have a very good idea (that I put forth here already). With ALL that luxurious 70's production design, & that cast, who could not fall in love with that show unless the writing was deficient, and in the way I described?

@MongoLloyd said:

I think he was likable but the problem was he was too much of a loser. Every episode they made us think he was on the verge of a breakthrough that never materialized. You can't have a protagonist who constantly loses like he did. It's frustrating and masochistic.

All I wanted him to do was discover punk rock but instead he proved to be little more than a complete f( )ckup.

Richie was not only a fuck up but a major POS who backstabbed the closest people to him. I think this is why the audience just couldn't deal with it. To me, the final straw was the shit he pulled in Vegas. After that, I really couldn't care less what happened to the guy or the story. I too had high hopes for this show. I loved the music and the unfolding of the different genres that we know later became huge including disco, hip-hop, and of course punk.

Yeah, you can only give a protagonist so many flaws. Right up to the end though I really wanted him to make some kind of a breakthrough, and I always assumed he was going to discover or bring punk to the masses.

That really seemed like the direction it was going in so possibly they were just taking too long to get there and lost their audience.

@MongoLloyd said:

Yeah, you can only give a protagonist so many flaws. Right up to the end though I really wanted him to make some kind of a breakthrough, and I always assumed he was going to discover or bring punk to the masses.

That really seemed like the direction it was going in so possibly they were just taking too long to get there and lost their audience.

I think you are right, that was exactly the direction it was going. I think they were trying to convey that to have such a brilliant ear for music as Richie had you kinda had to be a bit assholish. Certainly to be able to see the magic of punk rock when traditionally the musical talent was sub-par to even an average rock ' roll band of the era. Richie understood that it wasn't just the musical talent that made rock n' roll sell, it was the attitude. Punk made not have been the next level in musical talent but it certainly was the next level in attitude. This was something Julie couldn't see as he was just concentrating on the musical talent, not the attitude.

@movie_nazi said:

I think you are right, that was exactly the direction it was going. I think they were trying to convey that to have such a brilliant ear for music as Richie had you kinda had to be a bit assholish.

I didn't even consider that, but that makes a lot of sense.

The Tony Soprano character was more better developed than the Richie Finestra character in the fact that we see Tony have weaknesses that a lot of people can relate to. He has anxiety issues. He goes to a shrink. Both of which are big no-nos in the mafia world as it is looked upon as both unmanly and a fatal flaw that could unseat their entire operation. We also see him as a family man dealing with domestic issues most of us deal with. No, The Sopranos was a much better-crafted show, at least the first few seasons. I would argue that the last few seasons it was running on fumes including the dismal finale but the character development in that show beat the pants off of Vinyl. It was a shame too because I thought Vinyl had a wonderful cast, all very talented sans perhaps Wilde but we know that Hollywood trope. Most pretty people in Hollywood can't act for shit so it was expected.

I would argue that Tony was more of a sociopath than a psychopath that is his behavior was learned and not intrinsic. Psychopaths are damaged from the get-go and there really is no treatment for them. A sociopath can unlearn his dog eat dog behavior albeit very difficult but it can be done. Of course, we see at the end of the show when he uses the car accident as an opportunity to murder Christopher that he is who is and there is no changing him. BTW I hated the ending of that show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dv8zJiggBs&t=557s

Yes, its all very confusing which is why people have to go to school for years to be able to call themselves Dr. in the field. The point I was trying to make was the difference between a socio and a psycho and really a psycho is doomed to commit atrocities. I do remember encountering children growing up that although I could not give a professional assessment (obviously) , that the child was just way too young to have been able to have learned such heartless behavior. Such as cruelty to animals or completely self-centered and a complete lack of empathy.

I don't know. They really are very much still in the dark when it comes to mental health. We are barely above witch doctors, truth be told. I remember when they used to diagnose homosexuals as a mental condition and that is now thoroughly been debunked.

@Invidia said:

Yeah and they also almost did away with NPD as well when the 5TH EDITION of the DIAGNOSTIC BOOK was released. But after many complaints from other pros they also decided to leave it in there.

The problem is how our entire SOCIETY also exhibits signs of having the disorder (which would also make it NORMAL to be that way instead of being ABNORMAL).

Half of kids they interviewed, for example, also expected to grow up and become a famous celebrity (thus the reason why they say being ABNORMAL is now NORMAL.

This NORMAL/ABNORMAL stuff can definitely get to be confusing.

Wow really? I remember growing up and thinking it would be an absolute nightmare to be a celebrity. Everyone always looking at you, judging you, waiting for you to fuck up. Oh gosh, the pressure was just too much to bear!

@Invidia said:

It's all of this REALITY TV stuff and shows where PARIS HILTON is featured that gives kids that kind of an impression.

Jane Fonda also said she thought everyone was rich when she grew up and was SHOCKED to discover other people were POOR when she began to travel around the world.

One also felt the same way as you do about people looking at you. And that's also because of a PLAY I accidently became the STAR of when still only about 5 or 6 yrs old.

We wore BEAR costumes and did a dance, but I was also the ONLY BROWN BEAR because I didn't know about PANDA BEARS and told my mother that the PATTERN for the PANDA BEAR costume wasn't right.

So she makes a COSTUME for me from SCRATCH, and then I discover I'm the only BROWN BEAR.

And since the BROWN BEAR had also seen the rest of the play many times it also sat there WATCHING the AUDIENCE during the DRESS REHEARSAL instead of watching the play.

And then when the audience began laughing, it also turned around to see it was LAUGHING at it, because the curtain had closed and it was still sitting there all alone on the stage.

So the principal called my mom asking her to get me to do it again for the SHOW later that night that was for the parents.

But the BROWN BEAR refused because it didn't like the ATTENTION it had gotten from being the STAR of the show.

So when the other PANDA BEARS tried to shove the BROWN BEAR back to the FRONT of the stage to be the STAR ATTRACTION again the BROWN BEAR ran away to the back of the stage and didn't want any part of that stuff or being LAUGHED at again.

Wow, that story has really stuck with you. That experience must have made a huge impression on you. To remember something with such detail from such an early age.

The Jane Fonda story. You see, this is what I think that trust fund baby Tucker Carlson suffers from. He has no idea what it is like to struggle and doesn't have the mental capacity to honestly emphasize with people. At least Fonda had a heart and had the GUTS to emphasize with the Vietnamese people who were getting their babies napalmed by OUR military. People used to hate her guts for that and she was right all along.

@Invidia said:

Not familiar with this TUCKER Carlson person.

Lucky you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxDsMz1XkQs