Why do ITV audiences like toxicity and aggressive MLs? - Page 2

Probably all views point towards the notion that a hero's drive is supposed to arise from intense passion. Intensity in work, intensity in love, intensity in hate, intensity in values, intensity in human interactions, intensity in everything. But normal people are not intense. They are resilient. They are not as tall as coconut trees but as flexible as the riverside weeds. They are not savage and always distinct from others. Real people have a driving force but it's not overt. They don't keep harping about being truthful, or having a zeal to do something in life to everyone in real life. They do not have make or break tendencies. Unlike characters on television and films where all of them are so overly ambitious and idealistic to the point where it's nothing but over exertion of nerves, brain cells and exasperation. The character examples that have been given are not normal people who feel low and the next day have their own share of happiness. They break when the slightest of the winds blow against them.

I feel we don't have moderates these days. It's either this end or that end. Two extreme individuals on screen. And that somehow is akin to fireworks on screen. Probably that's where the audience finds the driving force for themselves to get through their own tedious day.

Very true. Because immoral or flawed behavior naturally generates conflict and dramatic tension in ways that virtuous behavior often cannot. Similarly, nice characters tend to be less compelling because they're usually static, their development is limited, and their decline is often disheartening. In contrast, antagonists or morally complex characters offer the potential for redemption arcs, which are far more engaging and emotionally resonant for audiences.

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

Probably all views point towards the notion that a hero's drive is supposed to arise from intense passion. Intensity in work, intensity in love, intensity in hate, intensity in values, intensity in human interactions, intensity in everything. But normal people are not intense. They are resilient. They are not as tall as coconut trees but as flexible as the riverside weeds. They are not savage and always distinct from others. Real people have a driving force but it's not overt. They don't keep harping about being truthful, or having a zeal to do something in life to everyone in real life. They do not have make or break tendencies. Unlike characters on television and films where all of them are so overly ambitious and idealistic to the point where it's nothing but over exertion of nerves, brain cells and exasperation. The character examples that have been given are not normal people who feel low and the next day have their own share of happiness. They break when the slightest of the winds blow against them.

I feel we don't have moderates these days. It's either this end or that end. Two extreme individuals on screen. And that somehow is akin to fireworks on screen. Probably that's where the audience finds the driving force for themselves to get through their own tedious day.

I didn't talk about intensity. But yes, people may find intensity in extreme hatred. I talked about hatred in my previous post. I conveyed that the simple, sober, decent, and likable guy can't add drama to ITV shows. And in the world of ITV, drama means some problematic actions such as multiple marriages, forced marriages, revenge marriages, and extramarital affairs.

Originally posted by: Shirsha

I didn't talk about intensity. But yes, people may find intensity in extreme hatred. I talked about hatred in my previous post. I conveyed that the simple, sober, decent, and likable guy can't add drama to ITV shows. And in the world of ITV, drama means some problematic actions such as multiple marriages, forced marriages, revenge marriages, and extramarital affairs.

Yes yes. I actually replied to Autumn09 and Randomlurker. I tagged you and others since you had also commented in the discussion. :)

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

Yes yes. I actually replied to Autumn09 and Randomlurker. I tagged you and others since you had also commented in the discussion. :)

Oh okay, I've understood it now.

I genuinely understand where you're coming from, especially regarding Neil's character in Ghum. And yes—I 100% agree that the biggest fault lies with the writers. But They had a full three-month window to flesh out his character, build nuance, and give him a distinct personality. But they didn’t. And the truth is, Ghum writers have always been lazy with character development. Even when they’re copying plots from other shows, they refuse to tweak or adapt anything to suit their own narrative.

Copying from another show isn’t necessarily the issue—many serials are adaptations or inspired by others. The problem arises when that copying is scene-to-scene, without any effort to innovate or add layers to characters. For example, even during Sairaj time, they were literally copying scenes from yhm secne to secne.

Let me bring up Imlie Season 1 as an example once again. When Aditya was introduced, the writers immediately set the tone for his character: a principled journalist, deeply career-driven, emotionally distant, and sometimes even blunt to the point of rudeness. Living a modest lifestyle and income, and largely indifferent to material wealth. He was so consumed by his career that he barely gave time to his family or even his fiancée, Malini. In fact, he often clashed with Malini over his professional commitments—his goal to win a prestigious journalism award took priority over everything else.

Simultaneously, Imlie was shown as an illegitimate child, emotionally abused by her grandmother, academically ambitious despite her rural background, and aiming to get a scholarship to a city college. Within the first month, both characters were established with clarity. By the 2nd or 3rd month, the forced marriage track began—but by then, the audience knew who these people were.

With Neil’s character, there was no such foundation. He was flat. And when you're already adapting a slow-paced and not-so-engaging original story, it becomes even more important to add flavor and dimension. But Ghum’s makers never did that—for Neil or even for Teju. Teju was introduced as someone with a dream to be a singer, but within days she was shown blushing over Rutu. Where was the drive?

Now, let me make a respectful but honest point. Itv viewers, for better or worse, are now conditioned to expect strong, goal-oriented FLs. Whether it’s a lawyer, IPS, doctor, or businesswoman—it automatically gives the FL a sense of direction, which helps build a more compelling journey. While there’s nothing wrong with professions like teaching, singing, cooking, or decorating, it just itv tends to write the latter set of dreams as soft, sweet, and domestic—which lacks the punch viewers expect from a female lead today.

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

This is actually in response to a reply on my post on the new season EDT#5 by missFiesty_69. We both wondered what made the non-toxic Neil's character unlikable to TRP audiences. Why do ordinary characters not click? Why is it always a tensed story and emotionally unavailable leads winning this ratings race? I thought this question requires a separate thread as I have written a long long post. There might be a few points feeling repetitive but I wrote them for emphasis. Kindly bear. Would love to hear other viewpoints about this extremely disturbing topic.

We all know that the audience of these daily soaps is definitely not the miniscule, urbane, sophisticated crowd in metro cities. It's usually the housewives or regressive joint families viewing these shows. Both these categories are direct implications of rooted patriarchy.

There seems to be a trauma bonding between the viewers and the tortured characters in these shows. It's almost like Stockholm Syndrome, where you get emotionally attached to your own kidnapper. They get attached to these traumatised, insane, maddening characters as if they are outlets to their own frustrations. Many viewers from these emotionally and sexually repressive backgrounds, have subconsciously internalized toxic behaviors as “normal.” When daily soaps portray manipulation, emotional blackmail, or dysfunctional families, viewers feel a sense of familiarity, even if it's uncomfortable.

The Psychology Behind This Affection towards Toxicity:

Watching characters cry, scream, or confront each other provides a safe outlet for the viewers' own frustrations or desires. Greek philosopher Aristotle called this catharsis—emotional purification through drama.

Another plausible explanation would be Carl Jung’s theory of the “shadow self”. It explains how people project their hidden or socially unacceptable desires onto others. In daily soaps, viewers may secretly identify with powerful villains, manipulative mothers-in-law, or obsessive lovers—not because they admire them, but because they represent impulses the viewer suppresses in real life. It's again a direct causation of the orthodox and mostly uneducated backgrounds these audiences come from. Women who have grown up seeing all these behaviours around them try to subject their next generation in that toxicity as well. This reflects in the television storylines where there seems to be a generational trauma of the complete control of mothers in law towards the daughters in law, influencing even their sons' decisions, turning them into the typical "mumma's boys".

This about the toxic storylines and FLs. What about the toxic MLs?

Toxic male leads are often written to embody dominance, emotional detachment, control, and assertiveness—traits historically associated with masculinity. In conservative or patriarchal cultures, these men are seen as “strong,” even when their behavior borders on abuse. Audiences, especially those conditioned to associate love with authority and intensity, romanticize this power. Similar to our target audience, isn't it?

I was seeing the Netflix series Adolescence the other day. Absolutely chilling and so eerily real. I have seen the typical manosphere ideas being reiterated by numerous male classmates and acquaintances around me. It's this fragile masculinity that's attracting audiences. Both on ground and on social media. This toxicity is gaining traction and momentum, and therefore, the sadistic portrayals of fictional characters on screen.

Remember one of those childhood stories, "The Beauty and the Beast"? It employs the same toxicity but in a subdued manner.

He doesn’t express love, but he protects her. He hurts her, but he also saves her.

This duality creates a fantasy of taming the beast. It plays into a deeply embedded narrative: “If he’s cruel to everyone but kind to her, it must be true love.” There’s a long-standing fictional trope that the emotionally unavailable, arrogant, or cruel male lead is secretly wounded—and that the female lead (and by extension, the audience) can heal him with love. This idea is especially appealing to viewers socialized into nurturing roles. Again, viewing female characters one-dimensionally, whose only ambition in life is to play the role of a therapist in the ML's life. To fix him, to somehow "teach" him love. But we have forgotten that humans know how to love naturally. Hate is taught, love isn't.

Viewers are conditioned to equate intensity with romance (e.g., surveillance, verbal aggression, coercion), as signs of "how much he cares." This idea is reinforced when these men get a redemption arc or are shown to be victims of trauma themselves—making their behavior seem "understandable" or forgivable. I blame Ekta and Gul Khan for all these dysfunctional, broken men, unattainable men, voyeuristic men tropes. They seem to be just looking through the lenses of these females who are sexually repressed, especially those who feel powerless or emotionally unfulfilled. For this category, the fantasy of being "the one woman" who a toxic man will change for is extremely seductive. It speaks to their desires for validation, power, uniqueness, and emotional rescue. Similar to the mother-in-law patterns of thinking, you see?

What if we show a soft ML for once?

Television soaps rarely offer balanced, emotionally intelligent male leads—and when they do, those characters are often perceived as "boring" or "weak."

Take Neil for instance. Yes, he was marketed as an extremely good man but had senseless dialogues during the pre-wedding track and his actions at the altar were unpardonable. However, he was also not the "best doctor of the year" blah blah... He was an ordinary man. A man we could've bumped into at a supermarket. A man we could talk to at our workplace or university. He cried when he had a heart break instead of going on full revenge on mode. He taunted the girl he loved when she rejected his proposal like we all do. He became indifferent to others because others didn't consider his desires. Yes, he felt creepy for a while. He was impulsive in saying a yes that could change two lives. He was weak. But that made him more human.

Alas, people don't like to watch characters that can expose their vulnerabilities on screen. It's the viewers who are too weak to accept the people they meet in reality. Neil wasn’t the idealized male lead we’re so accustomed to. He was not the charismatic, decisive hero with all the answers. He was very ordinary. He faltered. He felt deeply and let his fears win. And that’s precisely why many viewers couldn’t accept him. Like I said in that post, fiction often serves as an escape, and when audiences turn to television or cinema, they want to leave behind the complexity of real people. They crave the comfort of fantasy, not reminders of the awkward silences they witness daily in their own lives.

Television soaps and commercial films are built on this very principle—they cater to fantasy. So when a character like Neil, stripped of embellishments and heroism, enters that world, he becomes a misfit. And inevitably, a target for backlash.

On the other hand, toxic leads dominate because they provide drama, unpredictability, and conflict, all of which are fuel for serialized storytelling. Healthy, introverted male characters often lack the highs and lows necessary to carry a daily soap for hundreds of episodes. In the absence of compelling, light-hearted male characters, the echo chambers of people hailing Kabir Singh or that annoying Reddit's favourite RK or ASR dominate as flawed but magnetic centerpieces.

The tragedy is not that Neil was poorly written, but that his realism didn’t align with the expectations of a TRP-driven ecosystem. Unfortunately, that ecosystem often rewards sensationalism over sincerity.

Neil wasn’t the problem. He was refreshingly real and human. The makers obviously don't know the nuances and therefore marketed him as goody two shoes. The real issue lies in how unprepared mainstream television is for characters who remind us too much of ourselves.

Finally got some time to reply
A very well thought out and articulated post though I have mixed opinions on this one.

We can go on and on about why the shows are made the way they are but I guess one line in your post summarizes the whole thing - they connect with the characters according to how they surroundings interact with them or what repressed emotions they would like to express.

The way a typical mother in law in itv loves to taunt the wife of making the husband a “Jhoru ka Ghulam” aka someone who supports and understands his wife because god forbid he offer unconditional support to someone he has promised to love and respect. You'd think there are no supporting mother in laws at all but the fact is people can relate with a MIL with a sharp tongue and mountain high expectations than with a one who respects the daughter in law like a human being.

I actually agree with Autumn09 ‘s post above. It’s kind of stereotypical to assume that these regressive content is churned out for people in rural communities — actually Christian Grey/ Arnav Singh Raizada kind of male characters are liked by well educated women & ladies, who are well aware of different types of physical / mental and emotional abuse, not to mention guiltr-tripping, gaslighting they do to drive their point home — incidentally they are the ones who find these Wattpad cliche stories good. There are actually stories where r!pe is romanticized. The mindset of the so called intellectuals is disconcerting.

@b: Neil's is a weekly written character. Better writers could have done his character justice, but if you ask me I really don't expect Ghum makers to write a story that has better plot points than a loud drama in the midst of their big hall or have women engage in cat fights. That is what they are famous for, to be honest every other show on not just Sitara but also other GECs seem to be the same, barring a few exceptions.

To a lot of audience, Neil's non confrontational behavior is not passionate, which unfortunately translates to boring. Sometimes he reminds me of Anuj from Anupamaa. There was a time when the show was( I wouldn’t commit the grave error of saying good) decent, but then Anuj was a very one dimensional character, or rather he become one. He was introduced to be a very famous businessman, who had the world at his feet but they reduced him to being a plot device, his existence was only to loving, being Anupama's yeasayer even though she might be right or ( in our case) mostly wrong. She loved to be humiliated by Shahs and she took him down with her too many times to count. Take Anupama away from the equation, he wouldn’t know what do with himself which is the case with Neil here. Characters ( both ML and FL ) with goals are the ones people like to watch, characters who have attained the peak, are content in their life, look to settle happily don't interest them. Aisa kyun hai, mujhe bhi nahi patha.

Soft characters might not be popular but they are accepted by a part of the audience. A very favourite FL of mine, Swadheenta Ramakrishnan, she was one of the female leads of her time, strong, determined, honest to a fault. So was Adarsh.
Even Dr Satya from Ghum season 1 was introduced to be a honest and a perceptive guy but Ghum had to make him the villain in order to highlight the non existent good qualities that Virat might have had but yeah that is what I meant when I said TRP makes them change storylines at a moment's notice effects of which the characters suffer.

Male leads are expected to be passionate, aggressive, commanding and charismatic. They cannot fumble or cry out aloud. We are supposed to understand that their a single tear means its a heart rending agony that's tearing them apart ( which is BS but that’s another debate ). Someone who does not stick to this will have a hard time capturing the attention of the audience. We need someone to create the drama, be obnoxious and command attention, not someone who'll blend within and let sleeping logs lie.

@b: that's true. They cater to the fancies of the audience rather than what happens in the real world. When someone attempts to break the illusion and show things as they are, they are met with resistance which leads to drop in TRPs.

Originally posted by: missFiesty_69

Finally got some time to reply
A very well thought out and articulated post though I have mixed opinions on this one.

We can go on and on about why the shows are made the way they are but I guess one line in your post summarizes the whole thing - they connect with the characters according to how they surroundings interact with them or what repressed emotions they would like to express.

The way a typical mother in law in itv loves to taunt the wife of making the husband a “Jhoru ka Ghulam” aka someone who supports and understands his wife because god forbid he offer unconditional support to someone he has promised to love and respect. You'd think there are no supporting mother in laws at all but the fact is people can relate with a MIL with a sharp tongue and mountain high expectations than with a one who respects the daughter in law like a human being.

I actually agree with Autumn09 ‘s post above. It’s kind of stereotypical to assume that these regressive content is churned out for people in rural communities — actually Christian Grey/ Arnav Singh Raizada kind of male characters are liked by well educated women & ladies, who are well aware of different types of physical / mental and emotional abuse, not to mention guiltr-tripping, gaslighting they do to drive their point home — incidentally they are the ones who find these Wattpad cliche stories good. There are actually stories where r!pe is romanticized. The mindset of the so called intellectuals is disconcerting.

@b: Neil is more of a weakly written character.. writers could have done his character better justice, but I really don't expect Ghum makers to write a story that has better plot points than a loud drama in the midst of their big hall or women engage in cat fights. That is what they are famous for, to be honest every other show on not just Sitara but also other GECs seem to be the same, barring a few exceptions.

To a lot of audience, Neil's non confrontational behavior is not passionate, which unfortunately translates to boring. Sometimes he reminds me of Anuj from Anupamaa. There was a time when the show was( I wouldn’t commit the grave error of saying good) decent, but then Anuj was a very one dimensional character, or rather he become one. He was introduced to be a very famous businessman, who had the world at his feet but they reduced him to being a plot device, his existence was only to loving, being Anupama's yeasayer even though she might be right or ( in our case) mostly wrong. She loved to be humiliated by Shahs and she took him down with her too many times to count. Take Anupama away from the equation, he wouldn’t know what do with himself which is the case with Neil here. People with goals are the ones people like to watch, characters who have attained the peak, are content in their life, look to settle happily don't interest them. Aisa kyun hai, mujhe bhi nahi patha.

Soft characters might not be popular but they are accepted by a part of the audience. A very favourite FL of mine, Swadheenta Ramakrishnan, she was one of the female leads of her time, strong, determined, honest to a fault. So was Adarsh.
Even Dr Satya from Ghum season 1 was introduced to be a honest and a perceptive guy but Ghum had to make him the villain in order to highlight the non existent good qualities that Virat might have had but yeah that is what I meant when I said TRP makes them change storylines at a moment's notice effects of which the characters suffer.

Male leads are expected to be passionate, aggressive, commanding and charismatic. They cannot fumble or cry out aloud. We are supposed to understand that their a single tear means its a heart rending agony that's tearing them apart ( which is BS but that’s another debate ). Someone who does not stick to this will have a hard time capturing the attention of the audience. We need someone to create the drama, be obnoxious and command attention, not someone who'll blend within and let sleeping logs lie.

@b: that's true. They cater to the fancies of the audience rather than what happens in the real world. When someone attempts to break the illusion and show things as they are, they are met with resistance which leads to drop in TRPs.

Yep. I agreed to Autumn09's post and the part about stereotyping rural or small town audiences is actually a miscommunication from my side. Apologies. I clarified it in my reply to her and Randomlurker :)

Also, you all are right in your opinions. I believe it's all a result of social conditioning, thought processes, escapism and the attention spans towards certain characters.

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

I was seeing the Netflix series Adolescence the other day. Absolutely chilling and so eerily real. I have seen the typical manosphere ideas being reiterated by numerous male classmates and acquaintances around me. It's this fragile masculinity that's attracting audiences. Both on ground and on social media. This toxicity is gaining traction and momentum, and therefore, the sadistic portrayals of fictional characters on screen.

On a separate note not related to the ongoing topic, Adolescence was too good!! It was like holding up a mirror to the society, I liked how even they revealed that he had killed her, they went about showing how much psychology plays a part. He did not even have a typical troubled childhood or abusive, neglectful parents which usually are cited as the cause for bad behavior. It was chilling and eerily good. How delicate is one's ego that rejections can push people to take someone's life in the heat of the moment. Especially the part with his counsellor in jail, uff!

Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore

Yep. I agreed to Autumn09's post and the part about stereotyping rural or small town audiences is actually a miscommunication from my side. Apologies. I clarified it in my reply to her and Randomlurker :)

Also, you all are right in your opinions. I believe it's all a result of social conditioning, thought processes, escapism and the attention spans towards certain characters.

no apologies required :) and thank you!