You actually have to be a dumb cunt to hate Skyler, I remember hating her when I first watched BB, because she was the bitch wife messimg with badass Walter, now that I rewatched it as I am older and damn, walter is a proper cunt the whole way through and she is trying navigate a really fucked up situation, I just felt bad for her the whole way through
Nah man, I hated Walter from the get go and still hated Skylar. Basically the only characters I liked ended up in Better Call Saul, outside of Hank and Jessie
I could have just said immature cunt, but those kinda go hand in hand, but kinda good on you come on here and prove my point, so thanks for that.
Nothing more fun then ruining the lives of your Wife, her Sister, your children and getting your Brother-in-law killed, not for money, because he could have made all the money he wanted with gus and got out, no, because of his fucking ego, because he liked it.
Nurse Ratched legit fucked me up, and it's a fictional character! Louise Fletcher was in the elite league that is basically her and Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. Incidentally, both got an Oscar for these roles.
Jeffery Dean Morgan as Neegan (sp) in The Walking Dead.
I think his role as the Comedian in The Watchmen was more hatable, at least the character was pretty awful in a grounded way instead of the silly over the top Walking Dead kind of way.
That character was so well done (The Comedian, I don't remember Walking Dead well enough). He's more tragedy than contemptable depending on your sympathies, but that was kinda' the point. It's almost the point of ANY "good" bad character. Give them motivations that are understandable by non-psychos, just make the character make poor (poor, not stupid) or mean decisions.
... and his acting helped round out the character instead of flatten. He genuinely seemed like a good guy that got insanely jaded and went off the deep instead of just a bad guy.
The Comedian somewhat repented though. He hated himself for all the evil he'd done. He was awful, but at least he realized how awful he'd been in the past and felt bad about it.
Skylar wasn't even evil or anything. Just a normal good person. Walter was an absolute piece of shit who chose to reject legitimate help and support, and instead do illegal villainous things.
But that's also the mark of a well written show, when you're compelled to take the side of a man making the wrong choices, to walk that line with him. And then be yanked the fuck back by the writers at the end.
"I did it for me. I did it because I was good at it."
The more I hate a character, the more respect and admiration I have for the actor/actress. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with people who can't differentiate between fiction and reality.
Being hateable doesn't mean you're wrong. Obviously Skyler was acting in her family's best interest and walt was a psycho POS but she played such an unlikeable character.
There are plenty of likeable "evil" characters and plenty of unlikeable "good" ones. People act like if you hate Skyler you somehow don't get the show, but no, I understand her character just fine, it's just that she's insufferable about everything.
Regardless, hating the actress for the character is smooth brain shit
I empathized with Skyler more than anyone else on the show. I was constantly asking myself what I would do in her position.
I feel like if someone found her insufferable, it was because you either agreed with Walt or were pissed that her character prevented shenanigans you wanted to see. I'll admit I fell into the latter category in the first season or two but by the end, she rocked. If neither describes you, feel free to explain why you thought she was insufferable
I think she was one of the most realistic and best-written characters in the entire show. I also don't think she got/gets nearly enough hate to even be a part this meme
In the realm of toxic masculinity power fantasies there is no room for a woman who acts kind of like a normal person.
The show was written to make you root for Walt and dislike Skylar because of that, but is she really that unlikeable if you step back and look at her actions and motivations?
Edit: Sorry for being terse and using charged language in this comment.
I'm a fan of Breaking Bad. I wasn't trying to put it down or to say that people disliker Skyler because she's a woman.
Nah, that lacks nuance. People who hate Skylar for just crushing Walt's vibe or being unlikeable are idiots. I have watched the show in its entirety three times, and my opinion on all the characters has evolved - my opinion of Skylar is more negative than it used to be. If you believe that Skylar is just a victim, you are denying her character agency. She is highly intelligent and capable and simultaneously intends to benefit from Walt's actions while being arrogant enough to assume she can control the situation, outsmart the authorities, and get off scott free - much like another main character.
Skylar made certain choices to support Walt because she thought it was in the family's best interest (including hers), then she later reneged on those choices when things didn't turn out like she expected and ultimately forced Walt to take the blame for choices she willingly made. Skylar is as relatable and flawed as she is unlikeable: just like we would in her circumstances, she lacks the courage to do what is necessary to stop Walt and protect herself and her family.
She did not have to support Walt in the first place but instead did so even when given many opportunities to get out of the situation with minimal consequences. She may have paid a price for doing so as time went on (asset seizure if she went to the cops, social ostracization, her kids disliking her, etc), but the consequences were initially fairly trivial - divorce from a criminal who was putting the family at risk, embarrassment, harming her relationship with Marie, etc. And, while Walt obviously was callous/cruel/self-righteous/arrogant/and even evil, maybe - as was the point of his whole character, Skylar chose to support Walt in his criminal enterprise when she didn't have to - going so far as to come up with money laundering ideas, encouraging him to expand his operations to an extent early on, helping him come up with cover stories, etc. and only later turning on Walt when she felt like she could no longer benefit from assisting him and would benefit more by betraying him - going so far as to physically assault him with a knife and threaten to kill him, lying to the police about his treatment of the family and also giving them his location which put his life in further jeopardy while he was trying to get the family to safety since he was being pursued.
In fact, Walt saw a way to use Skylar's betrayal to protect the family and takes the blame for Skylar's actions, goes along with Skylar's lie that he was physically assaulting the family, threatening them with death if they didn't comply, etc. all to take the heat off Skylar for the sake of the family. That doesn't mean Walt is a saint. He should've stopped long before that and did many things that put the family in danger. But, his taking the blame for Skylar's part in the operation shows that she did have a real part in it - he had to lie to say he forced her to be a part of the operation to put her in a better light and get her off the hook.
When Skylar initially began to support Walt, she was not under significant duress. There was a significant degree of duress later, with Walt acting intimidating, Meth Damon coming to "talk" to her at her house, etc. But you could say that just like the situation got away from Walt and was out of control, the same happened for Skylar. She thought she could control things and continue to benefit from Walt's operation to provide a better life for the family. Then, when things got out of control, she flipped on Walt. The difference between Walt and Skylar is that Skylar got dragged into the situation by Walt, but remember, he really did try to keep her out of it. At a certain point, she chose to insert herself into it rather than leave the situation.
People dislike Skylar because she lacks courage. Courage to get out early when she had the chance, courage to report Walt to the police despite having many allies to help her and numerous opportunities, courage to stick to her moral convictions about what Walt was doing, courage to ensure her family's safety before doing things that jeopardized her chances of full custody, courage to tell her kids the truth about Walt, or alternatively courage to stick with Walt since she had committed to doing so and was (at first) a willing accomplice. But, most importantly, the courage to face the consequences for her part in the whole ordeal - except at the very end when it was already too late. She lacks courage and is self-interested, wanting to benefit from Walt's dealings while bearing none of the risk or responsibility for her part in them.
I want to add that an annoying character can act morally totally OK but still be disliked. That is because the annoyance is real and their actions and their consequences are not.
You could have a saintly character that always does the "right thing" but if they have an obnoxiously annoying way of speaking (extrem high pitch, extremely slow or fast or something) I would still dislike them.
That is because I actually get annoyed watching the character while I do not react that harshly even to a drug kingpin as the consequences of their action is fictional.
I have that kind of feeling of annoyance for skyler. I really do get annoyed at her controlling and arrogant way to handle things as it reminds me of real people. I do believe that this was intentional to make her unlikeable on first glance.
No matter how moral or "normal" her choices are the consequences are still fictional while my annoyance is real.
Edit: irl the situation is of course reversed. The consequences are real and the annoyance temporary.
David Tennant's performance in Jessica Jones stuck with me for a while. It took a while for me not to assume his characters would be evil after that, and I was already familiar with his run as The Doctor.
Funnily enough, he's also a good psychopath in Harry Potter, but he hardly has any screen time. He has impressive range of being able to easily portray the most good characters and the most vile.
I've never heard of any of these people although the one on the top left looks vaguely familiar from game of thrones(?) like he was a pedantic pansy pathetic king or something? I don't know. I never really watched it.
Skylar being in this group is low-key insane. She cheated on her narcissistic drug dealing murderous husband. The rest of these folks are murderers or magical torturers.
I didn't even dislike Skyler because of her personality or the things she did, she was a great character, well written and acted. I didn't like the time spent on her b-plot when there were so many much more interesting things going on (in my opinion).
I didn't dislike her at all at first, because I didn't start watching the show until season 4 was airing. While I was binging the first few seasons if a Skyler heavy episode came on when I was super keen to know what was going on with Gus, or whatever, I'd just continue watching the next episode.
But once I got to the point where I was waiting all week for an episode, looking forward to seeing what happens with the cartels, cops, etc., that was when I found myself thinking "fuck, it's a God damned Skyler episode."
Soooo much nicer. She's smarter in the show and doesn't start doing things like molesting her handmaidens. Show Cersei is playing the game. Book Cersei thinks she already won around the time Tommen gets crowned.
There's an old story about Margaret Hamilton (the actress who played the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz) being slapped by a woman on the street for "being mean to Dorothy". Don't know if it's true though
I guess in movies or tv nowadays they kind of all have to have flaws to seem realistic and not too Dr. Cosby (heh).
So her being flawed wouldn't really be a good way to justify her actions, since the reality should be that they're all human. Not to say that her actions were terrible or the worst of the bunch, but sometimes she just wasn't likeable, and downright cruel other times.
god, Ashur was so well done. There were moments where you could just feel sorry enough for him that it made you hate his actions in response even more. Lemon juice on a paper cut.
I just scrolled quickly and didn't see it but the guy who played Peck ( William Atherton) in Ghostbusters the first one. Evidently he was not well received after the movie, least for awhile. He was a great at playing asshole characters in the 80s.
I mean, in the early days of TV sure, I know people in the 50s used to send blankets to an actress because she played a character that was poor and they would throw mud at the actor who played her husband because he was an asshole... But these days? Dang, get over it, they're just doing their job!
I guess, it is kinda a human trait to (mis)associate the character with the person behind it. I get what you're saying, though. But maybe it's also a compliment towards the actors
Jeffrey Dean Morgan?? How could anyone hate the Kentucky fried southerner from Seattle?? I stopped watching "the walking dead" before they got to his part. I started watching "the boys" because I hear he is joining the cast next season.
Give "Rampage" a shot and tell me you don't love that man.
So it's a video game movie, but a video game from the early days of video games, and it was loosely based on bad movies, literally there is no plot to the video game. It's Dwayne "the rock"Johnson playing Dwayne "the rock" Johnson as he always does, there's literally no depth to him or his character. There's a plot that's so rote and uninspired that you will never once be surprised at what comes next. There's jargon of every variety, accents way too far over the top, characters so 1 dimensional that paper would say they're thin.
And it's so damn good. It's "If I don't watch it at least once a year I feel something missing inside of my". You will quote it, you will laugh with it, you will vibe with it. It doesn't set out to redefine anything, but it does "rampage" so perfectly that it's a masterpiece.
It's a 90% movie for me, to 90% of the people I know in my life I would recommend it with confidence that they'll walk away happy with the recommendation. And those who I wouldn't recommend it to, I don't hold a grudge, it's not for everyone, but I also don't watch movies with them.
Related story: I remember the first time I learned of "rampage" the movie, I'm hugely anti-spoiler, I don't watch previews unless I'm probably not going to watch the movie. I don't remember which movie we were seeing in the theater, but we had our popcorn, we were there 5 minutes after the start time, the previews had just started (fuck movie theaters for this, and it's only gotten worse), I've ducked a couple previews already, and then I hear Dwayne Johnson say "George" and see a white gorilla, and I just about drop my popcorn, I turned to my wife and Said "there's no way this is what I think this is, I'm going to watch this whole damn thing, because there's no friggin way they made a movie with this source material". I've already written it off as 'yeah I'm not going to watch this, maybe I'll catch it on streaming'. By the end of the preview (which again, the movie is so damn by the numbers, it doesn't matter if you watch the preview, you know what you're getting from the title itself) not only was I excited, but my wife was "ok, we can watch that in the theater, what is the source material for it?" I explained it as "an early 90s arcade game with Godzilla, King Kong, and a werewolf climbing up buildings and knocking them down, just trying to wreck cities as fast as possible, for absolutely no reason but 'it's fun'". We saw it in the theater when it released, I hadn't watched any more previews for it, we walked away debating to see it a second time, or to just be happy with a day 1 streaming release purchase. I don't think we saw it a second time in the theater, that honorific is very rare (except in the time of movie-pass). Thanks for reliving that little nostalgia trip with me. I hope You've found much success in getting people to watch it, it's so much better than it had any right to be.
Hands down Claes Bang as 'the prick' from the show Bad Sisters. I'm pretty sure I'll have a visceral dislike of any character I see him play in the future.
As someone who got all the way to S14 in Supernatural and didn't watch TWD until maybe about a year or two ago, I think enough time had passed to cleanse my character palate and I see them as two separate people. Especially with so much Javier Bardem in between.
I don't know anything about Richard Kind in real life, whether he's chill or an asshole, or whatever.
But in the TV show Stargate Atlantis, he plays a man named Lucius Lavin (pronounced lovin') who is by far and away the most annoying antagonist to grace the show. He appears in two episodes, named similarly as he basically does the same thing in a different way. Great small time "villain" who has sinister potential, but is just starting out.
Absolutely made me hate the actor, and I refused to watch some things because he was in them.
Incidentally, he surprised me in a few shows as side characters, also annoying.
No idea what he's like for real though, so maybe he is annoying and unlikeable.
Kind is so good at playing that special kind of annoying turd who never crosses the line quite far enough to justify the violence you desperately want to inflict on them.
I suppose I was thinking of actors who are feared or intimidating because of their portrayals. I know I'd be scared of Christopher Lee if I had met him while he was alive. But you're right, I misunderstood the assignment.
Same with john glover, you know the character's gonna be a baddy but it's gonna be thoroughly enjoyable. Especially if he's in a superhero movie/series, scenery shall be devoured.
I don't hate, but I honestly despise everyone of "The Walking Dead" team, regardless of whether they were actors or production team, who were complicit in the emotional violence against their viewers when Neegan brutally murdered protagonists that the audience had grown attached to for seasons.
And I do not object to the killing of the protagonists, if that's what the writers wanted. I object to the way in which it was portrayed, breaking the rules of the genre and the unspoken agreement with an audience that there are different ways in which violence is portrayed depending on context:
The rule that was broken here is that the actual gore happens off-camera and is only implied, maybe the after-effects are shown. Gore on-camera in the zombie genre is only allowed between humans and zombies. Zombies are by definition subject to their instincts, whereas a human killing another human is cold-blooded murder in this scenario, and it is not needed for the story / suspense to show the actual gore - only the lead-up and an aftermath, or maybe an "artists depiction" - like "screen goes blurry" similar to the first murder (OTOH, I knew that one was coming and skipped a few seconds, so maybe I missed something similarly despicable).
The second murder in said scene caught me off-guard and made me (and a lot of other people) quit watching forever. Fuck AMC, fuck the producers, and fuck the cast for exposing me to that snuff shit.
yeah, as I argued, it wasn't the gore per se, but about the emotional violence and disrespect towards the viewers that made me despise the team of that series. Gore is shown in splatter movies (Halloween, Scream, ..), but in those you don't have an emotional build-up to like a character.
Protagonists are killed in thrillers / movies / series that build them up first, but then there's no direct gore. The crossover is what makes the director and everyone complicit a piece of shit.
I think the connection to the cast that the viewers had at that point was exactly what made the scene so impactful. Many other deaths that seemed just as brutal didn't hit as hard, and aren't even mentioned whenever the topic comes up. The implied death before then with the "Never mind, he's still alive!" was really where I felt insulted, and might've been another reason for his death to feel more real when it actually happened so vulgarly.
Taking it out on the whole team seems a bit much, though.
I think the connection to the cast that the viewers had at that point was exactly what made the scene so impactful.
It would have had the exact same type of storytelling impact (obviously not that of disgust) to show the bat swing, show the shocked looks, but cut away for the gore.
Taking it out on the whole team seems a bit much, though.
It's not like I can do anything about it. They're not likely to care that I consider them despicable human beings.
I disagree. I despise everyone involved for not distancing themselves in public from that torture porn. If they didn't know it before, they did afterwards & chose to roll with it.
My biggest issue was the fake-out death just before the actual death. The show had been going downhill for a while, and it just felt like they were going for shock instead of storytelling at that point. Fake a characters death, then suddenly they're alive, and then they're murdered. It just feels like they ran out of good ways to make the show interesting.
There was no way in hell Glen should have survived his fakeout death, and then it didnt even matter because they fucking brutally killed him off at the end of the season anyways.... and then waited until the very next season to confirm it... ALL WHILE THE SHOWRUNNER WAS SAYING THE SHOW WAS GOING TO TAKE A HARD LEFT FROM THE COMICS AS OF THIS SEASON, WHEN THE KILL WAS AS LITERAL SHOT FOR SHOT AS YOU CAN GET FROM TRANSITIONING FROM COMIC TO TV SHOW
Thank for posting here! Just a warning that you might get downvoted, we usually don't have that much memes in this community, we'll see how the members receive it.