17 fictional characters that almost ruined a TV-show

[Taake]

http://www.answers.com/article/1242...am5=10152433826111186&param6=27781681#slide=1

Came across this today. In a list of 17 figures that include Randy from That 70s Show and Scrappy doo the Whedonverse has no less than three characters, all to be expected;

Connor
Dawn
Kennedy

Tough breaks for these three, huh, seems like there's very little love for them wherever you turn. While there's two of them I certainly didn't like I wouldn't go so far as to say that they almost ruined the show though. Kennedy was very tangental and Dawn only truly mattered for season 5, then she was more or less background noise. Connor for season 4 was problematic because he was so one note, though I'm not sure a change to him could have "saved" the show either.

Do you guys agree with the list? As in the rest of it 🙂
I thought it was a pretty good list, plenty of characters annoyed me (Billie on Charmed, was a mistake but that was a sinking ship anyway, same for Randy on That 70s Show though I never blamed that season on his presence... again, that was already a sinking ship)

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The 'reason' why Kennedy almost ruined the series:
"Kennedy was a mouthy potential slayer who also became a love interest to Willow, whose previous girlfriend was the much-loved Tara" So, if she had not have been Willow's love interest I am thinking there would not have been a problem.

Ok, that's it. Can't read anymore. It's absurd that they say AJ almost ruined the Sopranos. Really?

 

[white avenger]

I have to confess, the only show on that list, other than, of course, "Buffy," and "Angel" is "Walking Dead," and, on that show, I think that pretty much all of the characters besides Rick are disposable. If I would be allowed to add a character and show of my own choosing, it would be Amanda, on "Highlander: The Raven." In fact, the entire series should have featured Methos and Joe Dalton. Not only were they more suited for that sort of series (Duncan had spent the last 4 years protecting Amanda, and now, suddenly, she's this kick ass head taker? No way) but neither one of them slept with Bill Clinton.

 

[thetopher]

Terrible, badly executed list. Their reasoning for many on the list is also pretty flimsy (they even admit that on several occassions) and the three Buffy/Angel examples are weak when compared with some of the others.

I agree about River Song though- from her introduction to her pervasive plot line I found her a grating character from the first, and I say that as somebody who likes Alex Kingston as an actress.

Fact- many fans conside Buffy Season 5 to be one of the stronger seasons. Dawn's in it a lot so really, how could she have ruined the show? Or in fact tv in general.
Same with Connor sort of. I mean many people don't like S4 of Angel, but that's because of what happens to Cordelia, right? Plus the suck-tastic Jasmine arc. Sure Connor is fairly one note but he doesn't ruin the season. And he's plenty likable in S5 when they bring him back.

Kennedy may have actually worked as a character if they'd put a better actress in the part- somebody with some actual chemistry with AH. As it is she does stink up the screen but she's hardly the worst thing about S7 of Buffy.

To be honest when I read the title threat I just assumed that this was going to be another piece slamming Spike, he's far more pervasive on both shows than either of these three.
And even then saying that a character 'ruined a show' is just garbage to throw out into the blogosphere- poorly thought out ramblings mostly.

 

[janas]

I can't open the link, it gives me an error page. What says about Connor? Well, whatever says, I'll not be agreement. 🙂 

Mr. Pole: hahaha.. that is funny. what's it say? doesnt matter I dont agree. ahaha

LOL In perfect Connor style. Regardless of the context, he never agreed with anyone, for principle 😛

 

[white avenger]

.

Fact- many fans conside Buffy Season 5 to be one of the stronger seasons. Dawn's in it a lot so really, how could she have ruined the show? Or in fact tv in general.
Same with Connor sort of.

Kennedy may have actually worked as a character if they'd put a better actress in the part- somebody with some actual chemistry with AH. As it is she does stink up the screen but she's hardly the worst thing about S7 of Buffy.

Season 5 was certainly one of the best of the seven seasons, and Dawn did, indeed, play a major role in the story line, but after that Season was over, she was little more than excess baggage. Seasons 6 and 7 could have gone on quite as well if she had simply faded away with Glory's death.

As for Kennedy, I'm not so sure that the acting can be held as responsible as the way that the character was introduced, then kind of poured onto Willow like a bucket of water. It's a case of lust at first sight, with no development or lead into it at all. Almost, one episode, she's walking through the door with Giles, and the next episode, we're learning about her tongue stud. Willow wasn't as much swept off her feet, as she was tackled and dragged off to the nearest bedroom. I didn't like the character, and I actually wish that Caleb had chosen her to be one of his first victims at the vineyard, but I think that that's more the fault of the writers than the actor. She had to work with the material that she was given, and she played a spoiled, obnoxious rich girl quite well. We weren't really supposed to like her. THAT was the chemistry that she had with Alison, and everyone else on the show. Unfortunately, chemistry isn't always a good thing.

 

[VisionBoy]

I disagree with a lot of the writer's points, but I can understand Conner and Dawn more than Kennedy. I may not like her, but I don't think Kennedy came close to ruining anything, it's not like she was a big focus; whereas Conner was in Angel season 4 and Dawn was in Buffy season 5.
Dawn was annoying early on; but at least she was introduced for an interesting story. Season 6 was probably her worst, although I actually had more sympathy rewatching it recently... and I actually really like her in season 7.

As for other shows:
Billie from Charmed was a bit annoying (and a desperate last shot for a spin off), but she was the least of their problems IMO. I think she's just a scapegoat for fans who can't accept that that season sucked all round anyway.

Emily from Friends was brought in as a blatant obstacle for Ross and Rachel. I hardly think she came close to ruining the show; I always thought it was quite obvious that you weren't really meant to like her anyway.

I agree that Dean from Gilmore Girls was some major character assassination, but I personally thought the show was spoiled far more by how obnoxious Rory became. And don't even get me started on Jess.

 

[Blaze]

Wow...I disagree with the three Buffy verse contender.

Kennedy: I'll just say it straight, I really like Kennedy. And for those who don't, well don't tell me a guest character that is in less than half a season out of 7 almost ruins a show. Sure, she wasn't a favorite, but she didn't do anything major to ruin any types of storyline or plot, and she didn't bring down the quality of s7 as a whole (the whole thing was messy, but NOT because of Kennedy).

Connor: I dislike the guy, but he is a very important character on AtS. S3 involving pregnant Darla/baby Connor is potentially one of the best arc on the show. Connor also served to change Angel and help him grow, and was also the trigger for other character growth (with Wes for example). I mainly dislike Connor because of the way he was portrayed by VK, but as a character, Connor enhances the show. It doesn't ruin it at all.

Dawn: Similar to Connor, Dawn is actually a huge important part of BtVS. MT is just excellent as Dawn, and s5 is one of the best season hands down. Again, to me Dawn enhances s5-7.

 

[AndrewCrossett]

I disagreed with all three. I think Dawn actually was a net positive for the show. She was a little sister who acted like a little sister. I just wish they didn't drop the issue of her Key-ness after season 5.

I understand what they were doing with Kennedy and Connor. Just because characters aren't lovable fan favorites doesn't mean they aren't important parts of a good story.

As for the other names on that list... I didn't watch many of those shows, so I can't say.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

Kennedy- I wouldn't say that she ruined the show or almost did. It was the last season and although her character didn't help, it was really the lack of Scooby moments and poorly executed big bad that ruined that season. Every thing else just doesn't help.

Dawn- Could have ruined the show but she didn't and then after season 5 she's just blah until parts in s7.

Connor-I liked Connor in s3 (since I just watched it again) I thought his reactions and confusions all made sense to the way he acted. But he kind of does ruin s4 because he doesn't really do anything other than to be used by Cordy/Jasmine. He's just really annoying and has no character growth. Glad they fixed him for s5.

Dean-Having been re watching Gilmore Girls season 1 for a podcast, I would say that if his character was more prominent then yes he would have ruined the show, because I just don't like him. He's an inconsistent character and to be honest I'm just not into Jared Padalecki, unless it's more light and comedic. I just never bought into the Dean and Rory relationship.

River Song- Was she used maybe too much? Yes. But besides Amy Pond, she's really the only thing I like about the Matt Smith doctor era. If she had been used more like Captain Jack (who they need to bring back) then maybe it would have worked better. But I don't think she is what ruined those seasons, she could have but didn't imo.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I got kind of sick of people (outside of BB reading internet material on the show) shitting on Dawn and Connor. I for one will never agree (I think Dawn S5 was fantastic quite frankly) but more so than just the fact that I disagree, it's that (reading up on years of Buffy internet commentary) it became so easy, expected, hackneyed and cliche for everyone to throw in their compulsory Dawn and Connor slam that I began thinking people weren't thinking anymore and/or could not be objective anymore about those characters. I understand some people have their own valid reasons for disliking those characters and that's fine, but everything I read on them outside of BB seems to resort to the same tired old arguments and points. I don't know what it is, but it sometimes seems like one of those things that a lot of people just jumped on board with because everyone else felt that way. It's also boring. Say something new about those characters, or those characters and their context/situation/relationships etc. There is always something new to say, even if you don't like them. Some people have valid reasons for not liking those characters and that's fine...let's move on and say and discuss new things. Say something revealing/thought provoking or I tune out.

Of course BB is not like that, not usually. I don't mean you guys.

 

[bespangeled]

I loved River Song - in fact I wanted her to be the new Dr. Who!
Dawn I liked - but I really wish they had done more with her being glowy, green energy construct.
Connor I tolerated....most of the time....reluctantly. He made sense, and he wasn't supposed to be likable.
Kennedy can eat **** and die. Sorry hated her then and hate her still - though someone saying she is rebound girl actually makes sense.
None of them came close to ruining the show!

 

[Mr Trick]

The 'reason' why Kennedy almost ruined the series:
"Kennedy was a mouthy potential slayer who also became a love interest to Willow, whose previous girlfriend was the much-loved Tara" So, if she had not have been Willow's love interest I am thinking there would not have been a problem.

Ok, that's it. Can't read anymore. It's absurd that they say AJ almost ruined the Sopranos. Really?[/QU

This for me. Tara was always going to be a tough act to follow. I think the Willow-Kennedy relationship was a little rushed, and maybe it did feel a bit off kilter with the main theme of that season. The actress in that part was fine, and Kennedy had her moments, overall not the best character, but far from the worse either.

I actually think Dawn grew more in S6 & S7 than when she first appeared. But, I agree that she was a key character in advancing the show, and I do think MT did a great job in the role. The main issue I have with Connor is that he was played by the actor he played Pete in Mad Men. And because that part is so different and I saw that show first then I did find him hard to believe in the Connor role, but I do think he added something of value to the narrative, just that maybe they kept hime around too long.

Is AJ the Son or Daughter from the Sopranos? I keep forgetting.

 

[The Bronze]

Well that site is spamming my phone so I can't read the full article. For the Buffyverse though I think it's a mixed bag.

Kennedy - I dislike the character. Ruining the show though? I don't think so. A small chunk of screen time in the last season, when surrounded by more anonymous or annoying potentials. There's no way you could seriously say the show was perfect except for Kennedy.

Connor - I've not watched Angel as much as Buffy but again I don't think it's fair to say Connor ruined the show. For a start he wasn't in Season 5 an awful lot so any damage done was largely reversed. I think it was a bit jarring introducing an impossible baby, then impossibly growing the baby into an irritating teen. Ruining the show is off base though. It led to interesting stories.

Dawn - This is actually a fair shout. Not because I dislike Dawn though. I think the character is played well by MT and she's also plenty likeable and relatable at various times. The problem with Dawn is all about circumstance. By introducing the character they destroyed the back story of the main character and made everyone on screen remember the last 4 seasons differently to us viewers. That's a big ask for everyone to just accept.

 

[Mr Trick]

Well that site is spamming my phone so I can't read the full article. For the Buffyverse though I think it's a mixed bag.

Kennedy - I dislike the character. Ruining the show though? I don't think so. A small chunk of screen time in the last season, when surrounded by more anonymous or annoying potentials. There's no way you could seriously say the show was perfect except for Kennedy.

Connor - I've not watched Angel as much as Buffy but again I don't think it's fair to say Connor ruined the show. For a start he wasn't in Season 5 an awful lot so any damage done was largely reversed. I think it was a bit jarring introducing an impossible baby, then impossibly growing the baby into an irritating teen. Ruining the show is off base though. It led to interesting stories.

Dawn - This is actually a fair shout. Not because I dislike Dawn though. I think the character is played well by MT and she's also plenty likeable and relatable at various times. The problem with Dawn is all about circumstance. By introducing the character they destroyed the back story of the main character and made everyone on screen remember the last 4 seasons differently to us viewers. That's a big ask for everyone to just accept.

I see where you are coming from on this one. But the way to look at it is that Dawn existed inside the character's head up to that point like she was just an implant or something. In a way they could still go about their routines. I agree that it is a leap of faith to take, and quite experimental, but that is partly why I love the show as it kept on re-inventing the wheel. For me the storyline works pretty well, but I can see the other view point also.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

This notion that any one character could "ruin" a show is ridiculous. If one character can do that, it must not be a very good show to begin with.

 

[Mr Trick]

This notion that any one character could "ruin" a show is ridiculous. If one character can do that, it must not be a very good show to begin with.

It would be harder to do with shows like Buffy, as it is very much about the group dynmic. By definition, there are always going to be enough good characters or strong plots, or one off episodes to sustain interest. Another reason why it would be hard is because of the ensemble nature of the show, then in most episodes each character gets a pretty fare share of screen time, so chances are before you get a chance to really dislike them it would move on to another scene.

On the other hand in comedy shows such as Seinfeld or Fraiser if the title characters were too annoying it would then be a little difficult to stomuch the shows.

 

[thetopher]

Oh, and where the hell was ST: tNG's Wesley Crusher on this list? 'Cause you know he should've been there.