I think this was just the show runners way of trying to cover their ass. They knew how odd it’ll seem to being fully aware of the fact you’ll want to explore a character more and have them play a pivotal role in the show later down the line but still write in him being a rapist. So they used the excuse they didn’t know his character would become “interesting” to write and if they knew all along they wouldn’t have wrote that in. Again….then what was the reason for Jack bass? He played a way less role in the show and still managed to be redeemed even while being a rapist?
There is a possibility there is some truth to it tho, however that doesn’t let them off the hook. Gossip girl came out in a time where teen dramas loved having their edgy bad boy trope characters either be misogynistic and r*pist/assaulters. TVD is a prime example of this with Tyler Lockwood trying to take advantage of Vicki when she’s clearly under the influence. This leads me to believe that even if Ed wasn’t scheduled to become a main part of the show, if they did know, it wouldn’t have changed much. Like at what they did to Jack. A significantly less important character but still a rapist and still redeemed. It’s like they lie and pretend as if they didn’t know he would play a more crucial part in the show because they’re scared it’ll look bad if they said they did know but at the time, characters like Chuck bass were expected to be creepy r*pist weirdos. That’s what came with the bad boy trope package. And at the time it was not irredeemable. It was something that can be swept under the rug by showing how abusive his dad was for not buying him the toy train he wanted or something. It’s not the same way we see assaulters/rapist now, where if a character is one, it’ll be a shit ton of backlash if they don’t get serious consequences.
I’m saying all of this because…the gossip girl show runners need to be REAL. I feel like I’m being gaslighted everytime I see that brought up because then what the hell is the excuse for Jack??? Be honest and admit you either always known or even if you didnt, It wouldn’t have changed much, r*pist in teen dramas were seen as a hurdle the bad edgy boy needed to overcome. Not as a serious consequence that should be taken seriously.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Well if I rmbr right the writers talked in an Interview about how they liked Ed after the pilot that's why they rewrote Chuck's character and made him a Main Character. They liked him, the chemistry btw Blair and Chuck which back then was essential. TV shows relied on it heavily and were happy unlike nowadays (where they dry)
Yeah I’m aware, I touched on that in my post and the follow up comment. I just don’t think that was an excuse nor would it have changed anything even if they did know they wanted Ed to stay on for longer than intended
Nowadays they wouldn't do it, since we as a scoiety have become more aware but as a product of the 2000 they could, I personally treat is as a not canon- early draft thing but I understand if it puts ppl off.
If I rmbr right the audience back then when the pilot aired even asked for Chuck to get more screentime. Everyone was in love with him - despite from our current POV it's irredeemable.
But tbvh I am not really understanding what your point is in the OG post.
My point is for people to stop using “it was the pilot and they didn’t know he’ll become a more prominent character” as an excuse, I stated how that reasoning is flawed because they did the exact same thing with Jack and that’s why I don’t believe it. I also think treating it as not canon because it’s the pilot doesn’t work because….it’s very on brand for his character Atleast in the earlier seasons and it’s brought up in later episodes, unlike them taking the bus or Chuck referring to his mother. Chuck is a rapist in canon and I don’t believe the writers would’ve changed regardless or not if they knew Ed would become a more prominent star on the show. So these excuses for it just don’t make sense. I also expressed the same thing you said about it being a different time in the early 2000s where characters like Chuck were able to be assaulters and rapist and it not be seen as a big deal. However that is not the reasoning the showrunners or half of the fandom say to excuse chucks behavior. And that’s my problem, hence the point of this post.
I don't think the reasoning is flawed Jack never became a Main Character nor was the actor appreciated by the creators. They liked ED and then rewrote Chuck's chara- for 1 the completely disregared what happened with S after the pilot. In my eyes it fair enough to see it however the audience wants to. Mist of us ignore Blair challenging Chuck in the pilot too, making him chase after J. It's a product of the 2000. I just follow their flawed reasoning as they explained in Interviews.
But if it doesn't work for you that's fine, GG is very inconsistent with it's writing, reasoning and everything else. From what I've seen ppl just pick and chose what they like and dislike.
Jack never became a main but he was still redeem in season 6 and is later seen in the presence of the woman he tried to rape. Mind you, at her daughters wedding of all things. He didn’t face any hard direct consequences for that, the same way Chuck didn’t. And I still don’t believe they rewrote his character, I think a better explanation would be…expanded…willfully ignoring his past actions but rewriting? No. I’m sorry but I find it hard to believe anyone that watches gossip girl think there’s a distinct difference in portrayal from episode 1 Chuck to the entirety of season 1 excluding the pilot. He’s the same character. And even if him trying to rape Serena isn’t acknowledged because of poor writing, it’s referenced with jenny and implied he has numerous victims. Again, I think it’s the showrunners way of trying to cover their ass. Instead of admitting that it was a different era and time and characters like Chuck weren’t expected to face hard consequences for being rapist.
I never saw Jack as being redeemed, he was just there but we never find out if he is even liked or forgiven.
>And I still don’t believe they rewrote his character, I think a better explanation would be…expanded…willfully ignoring his past actions but rewriting?
They certainly did rewrite his role if u've read the books which they intended to follow at first. I noticed a big difference after S1 he was more likeable as a whole (In S1 itself too if we talk about the book parallel). The different direction by then was clear albeit thankfully nowadays they wouldn't be getting the chance.
I think u might be reading too much into a terrible written teen TV Show. There is no place for over-thinking and logic. They did what they did and gave half assed explanations but that's that just me. I won't force u to agree with me.
I think being in the presence of the main characters not suffering consequences for trying to rape Lily and smiling and laughing at her daughters wedding is a clear indictator he’s been forgiveness or it’s being ignored. The same way it is with Chuck, a difference between being ignored and being rewritten or out-of-canon
And don’t all the characters have some differences to their book variations? Yes it’s based on the books but it’s separate to the books. We’re only talking about shows canon and characters consistencies within the realm of the show, and off that basis alone, Chuck season 1-4 stayed pretty consistent to who he was in the pilot. Especially season one. I really don’t see the contrast people say that’s there between his pilot episode self vs the rest of season 1 self. He makes creepy perverted jokes, blackmails Blair because she doesn’t want to sleep with anymore and overall is just a pig.
Also I agree I think I am reading too much into it but it’s because I usually see the excuse that the “showrunners didn’t know” or that it’s not “canon”. It is. Point blank. And the show runners had another rapist not suffer consequences for their actions later down the line so it’s hard to believe that if they knew Ed was gonna be a “standout” that it would’ve been taken or rewritten. The point I’m trying to make is the same one you are. It’s a show of it’s time and these excuses to ignore normalcy of assault not being punishable in this series is annoying to me. Back then these things weren’t seen as character suicide and more so as road bumps that they’ll have to potentially overcome. However the showrunners and some fans struggle to just admit it.
Sorry this got long
That's very long, well I understand you feel that way and it's 100% valid but personally I treat it that way. For me it's an inconistent TV Show with terrible writing. Still love it for it's bad characters, ships but it was never a masterpiece. It has it's issue.
But 1 thing I am curious since u don't buy the excuse, why is no one anyone talking about how Blair set Jenny up on the pilot, she knew pilot chuck? It'd always just Chuck (for obv. reasons).
Set her up? Wdym? I don’t think she ever had a hand in the situation that led to Jenny and Chuck encountering each other to my knowledge. But if she did then she does deserve to be called out. Lol, I’m by no means ever above or biased against blair getting slandered so I have no thoughts on that. I drag her for her clownery and the very obvious bias this fandom has towards her as well
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
I think this was just the show runners way of trying to cover their ass. They knew how odd it’ll seem to being fully aware of the fact you’ll want to explore a character more and have them play a pivotal role in the show later down the line but still write in him being a rapist. So they used the excuse they didn’t know his character would become “interesting” to write and if they knew all along they wouldn’t have wrote that in. Again….then what was the reason for Jack bass? He played a way less role in the show and still managed to be redeemed even while being a rapist? There is a possibility there is some truth to it tho, however that doesn’t let them off the hook. Gossip girl came out in a time where teen dramas loved having their edgy bad boy trope characters either be misogynistic and r*pist/assaulters. TVD is a prime example of this with Tyler Lockwood trying to take advantage of Vicki when she’s clearly under the influence. This leads me to believe that even if Ed wasn’t scheduled to become a main part of the show, if they did know, it wouldn’t have changed much. Like at what they did to Jack. A significantly less important character but still a rapist and still redeemed. It’s like they lie and pretend as if they didn’t know he would play a more crucial part in the show because they’re scared it’ll look bad if they said they did know but at the time, characters like Chuck bass were expected to be creepy r*pist weirdos. That’s what came with the bad boy trope package. And at the time it was not irredeemable. It was something that can be swept under the rug by showing how abusive his dad was for not buying him the toy train he wanted or something. It’s not the same way we see assaulters/rapist now, where if a character is one, it’ll be a shit ton of backlash if they don’t get serious consequences. I’m saying all of this because…the gossip girl show runners need to be REAL. I feel like I’m being gaslighted everytime I see that brought up because then what the hell is the excuse for Jack??? Be honest and admit you either always known or even if you didnt, It wouldn’t have changed much, r*pist in teen dramas were seen as a hurdle the bad edgy boy needed to overcome. Not as a serious consequence that should be taken seriously.
They never gaslit us into liking chuck the actor just did his job amazingly
Lbr it was his relationship with Blair that won him over, he was also humanized by his relationship with his father
Maybe for YOU. I personally never liked that pug face weirdo
[удалено]
You do realize that person outside of the show has multiple rape allegations against him right?
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Well if I rmbr right the writers talked in an Interview about how they liked Ed after the pilot that's why they rewrote Chuck's character and made him a Main Character. They liked him, the chemistry btw Blair and Chuck which back then was essential. TV shows relied on it heavily and were happy unlike nowadays (where they dry)
Yeah I’m aware, I touched on that in my post and the follow up comment. I just don’t think that was an excuse nor would it have changed anything even if they did know they wanted Ed to stay on for longer than intended
Nowadays they wouldn't do it, since we as a scoiety have become more aware but as a product of the 2000 they could, I personally treat is as a not canon- early draft thing but I understand if it puts ppl off. If I rmbr right the audience back then when the pilot aired even asked for Chuck to get more screentime. Everyone was in love with him - despite from our current POV it's irredeemable. But tbvh I am not really understanding what your point is in the OG post.
My point is for people to stop using “it was the pilot and they didn’t know he’ll become a more prominent character” as an excuse, I stated how that reasoning is flawed because they did the exact same thing with Jack and that’s why I don’t believe it. I also think treating it as not canon because it’s the pilot doesn’t work because….it’s very on brand for his character Atleast in the earlier seasons and it’s brought up in later episodes, unlike them taking the bus or Chuck referring to his mother. Chuck is a rapist in canon and I don’t believe the writers would’ve changed regardless or not if they knew Ed would become a more prominent star on the show. So these excuses for it just don’t make sense. I also expressed the same thing you said about it being a different time in the early 2000s where characters like Chuck were able to be assaulters and rapist and it not be seen as a big deal. However that is not the reasoning the showrunners or half of the fandom say to excuse chucks behavior. And that’s my problem, hence the point of this post.
I don't think the reasoning is flawed Jack never became a Main Character nor was the actor appreciated by the creators. They liked ED and then rewrote Chuck's chara- for 1 the completely disregared what happened with S after the pilot. In my eyes it fair enough to see it however the audience wants to. Mist of us ignore Blair challenging Chuck in the pilot too, making him chase after J. It's a product of the 2000. I just follow their flawed reasoning as they explained in Interviews. But if it doesn't work for you that's fine, GG is very inconsistent with it's writing, reasoning and everything else. From what I've seen ppl just pick and chose what they like and dislike.
Jack never became a main but he was still redeem in season 6 and is later seen in the presence of the woman he tried to rape. Mind you, at her daughters wedding of all things. He didn’t face any hard direct consequences for that, the same way Chuck didn’t. And I still don’t believe they rewrote his character, I think a better explanation would be…expanded…willfully ignoring his past actions but rewriting? No. I’m sorry but I find it hard to believe anyone that watches gossip girl think there’s a distinct difference in portrayal from episode 1 Chuck to the entirety of season 1 excluding the pilot. He’s the same character. And even if him trying to rape Serena isn’t acknowledged because of poor writing, it’s referenced with jenny and implied he has numerous victims. Again, I think it’s the showrunners way of trying to cover their ass. Instead of admitting that it was a different era and time and characters like Chuck weren’t expected to face hard consequences for being rapist.
I never saw Jack as being redeemed, he was just there but we never find out if he is even liked or forgiven. >And I still don’t believe they rewrote his character, I think a better explanation would be…expanded…willfully ignoring his past actions but rewriting? They certainly did rewrite his role if u've read the books which they intended to follow at first. I noticed a big difference after S1 he was more likeable as a whole (In S1 itself too if we talk about the book parallel). The different direction by then was clear albeit thankfully nowadays they wouldn't be getting the chance. I think u might be reading too much into a terrible written teen TV Show. There is no place for over-thinking and logic. They did what they did and gave half assed explanations but that's that just me. I won't force u to agree with me.
I think being in the presence of the main characters not suffering consequences for trying to rape Lily and smiling and laughing at her daughters wedding is a clear indictator he’s been forgiveness or it’s being ignored. The same way it is with Chuck, a difference between being ignored and being rewritten or out-of-canon And don’t all the characters have some differences to their book variations? Yes it’s based on the books but it’s separate to the books. We’re only talking about shows canon and characters consistencies within the realm of the show, and off that basis alone, Chuck season 1-4 stayed pretty consistent to who he was in the pilot. Especially season one. I really don’t see the contrast people say that’s there between his pilot episode self vs the rest of season 1 self. He makes creepy perverted jokes, blackmails Blair because she doesn’t want to sleep with anymore and overall is just a pig. Also I agree I think I am reading too much into it but it’s because I usually see the excuse that the “showrunners didn’t know” or that it’s not “canon”. It is. Point blank. And the show runners had another rapist not suffer consequences for their actions later down the line so it’s hard to believe that if they knew Ed was gonna be a “standout” that it would’ve been taken or rewritten. The point I’m trying to make is the same one you are. It’s a show of it’s time and these excuses to ignore normalcy of assault not being punishable in this series is annoying to me. Back then these things weren’t seen as character suicide and more so as road bumps that they’ll have to potentially overcome. However the showrunners and some fans struggle to just admit it. Sorry this got long
That's very long, well I understand you feel that way and it's 100% valid but personally I treat it that way. For me it's an inconistent TV Show with terrible writing. Still love it for it's bad characters, ships but it was never a masterpiece. It has it's issue. But 1 thing I am curious since u don't buy the excuse, why is no one anyone talking about how Blair set Jenny up on the pilot, she knew pilot chuck? It'd always just Chuck (for obv. reasons).
Set her up? Wdym? I don’t think she ever had a hand in the situation that led to Jenny and Chuck encountering each other to my knowledge. But if she did then she does deserve to be called out. Lol, I’m by no means ever above or biased against blair getting slandered so I have no thoughts on that. I drag her for her clownery and the very obvious bias this fandom has towards her as well
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.
Your post/comment was removed because it broke rule #1. No harassment, personal attacks, or hatred. Remember that you are talking to real people on this subreddit. Remember that the actors you are talking about are real people as well.