My take on Poison Ivy & Silver Moon - Page 7

Originally posted by: LawlessLawyer

Ekta ne audience ko ullu samajh rakha hai kya? Garudas aren't just mortal enemies of the Nagas but they are every inch superior to them. Looks like Ekta has forgotten that her production house is named after Lord Balaji in her obsession to show Naags as superior to every other creature.

There used to be this show called Adhuri Kahaani Hamari on AndTV which dealt with the theme of Naags and Garud Dev. I still remember a dialogue from that show - "Garud Bhagwaan Vishnu ke vahan hai. Aur Sheshnaag unki shaiyya. Ishwar ke sharan main dono ka barabar ka sthaan hai." If a show on a small channel like AndTV could focus on the details then what is wrong with Ekta? Even the show Mahakumbh on Life OK portrayed the rivalry between the Garudas and the Nagas in a much more interesting manner.

Veer/Aakesh turning out to be a member of the OG Garuda clan would be a twist which can redeem this blunder. Kya zaroorat thi Cheelon ko bura dikhaane ki?

Kyunki behen, ye EK ka show hai. Uska logic aur myth se koi vaasta nahi hai. Agar hota, to aisi cheeze nahi dikhati. Aur show Naagin hai, to jahaan hero Naagin ho, waha har koi villain aur bura hai.

Just look at historical shows - for instance, Maharana Pratap. Waha bhi Sharad hi tha, btw. Ok, so Maharana Pratap aur Akbar dono ek barabar the, contemporaries the. Lekin Akbar ko, uski family ko puri tarah galat tareeke se darshaya gaya tha. Jab bhi kisi story me koi ek character hero hota hai, usko glorify karne ke liye, dusre ko hamesha villain ya wrongly portray kiya jata hai. To date, I haven't seen any show, where both contemporaries or both clans have been shown powerful yet good or neutral. That is what I think.

Originally posted by: libran90

Kyunki behen, ye EK ka show hai. Uska logic aur myth se koi vaasta nahi hai. Agar hota, to aisi cheeze nahi dikhati. Aur show Naagin hai, to jahaan hero Naagin ho, waha har koi villain aur bura hai.

Just look at historical shows - for instance, Maharana Pratap. Waha bhi Sharad hi tha, btw. Ok, so Maharana Pratap aur Akbar dono ek barabar the, contemporaries the. Lekin Akbar ko, uski family ko puri tarah galat tareeke se darshaya gaya tha. Jab bhi kisi story me koi ek character hero hota hai, usko glorify karne ke liye, dusre ko hamesha villain ya wrongly portray kiya jata hai. To date, I haven't seen any show, where both contemporaries or both clans have been shown powerful yet good or neutral. That is what I think.

MP is one example but mere dimaag main Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat aata hai. Everyone knows that Ashoka was no doodh ka dhula guy. He was a tyrant with grey and even dark shades. However the showrunners turned him into this mahaanta ki moorat who was the victim of his evil stepmom and stepbro. No one was allowed to be superior or even equal to Ashok in terms of skills because he was the Gary Stu of the show. Even Kalinga,the state which historically suffered the most due to him,was shown in a negative light.

Porus is another example. Before the show began,I thought we would finally get an interesting onscreen rivalry where Alexander and Porus are equals with grey and white shades who respect each other.However the makers opted for the same old clichéd route and turned Alex into a maha kameena as compared to mahaan Puru.

ITV showmakers fail to understand that character development is an essential element in the story and that is what keeps the audience engaged. Why would someone get invested in a character who is perfect from the beginning? Also it's not necessary for the protagonist to be an overpowered superhuman who can do nothing wrong every time. They also kill potential conflict between characters.

Agar inn logon ne Sherlock banaya hota toh likhwake lelo ki usme Moriarty nikamma hota aur saara dimaag Sherlock ke paas hi hota.

Originally posted by: LawlessLawyer

I guess this is where most ITV shows make a blunder. For them everything is either black or white and there is no grey in between.If the protagonist is the epitome of goodness then the antagonist has to be nalayak kameena . This is why such shows lack nuance and balance. They simply waste the opportunity to deliver an interesting show.

MP is one example but mere dimaag main Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat aata hai. Everyone knows that Ashoka was no doodh ka dhula guy. He was a tyrant with grey and even dark shades. However the showrunners turned him into this mahaanta ki moorat who was the victim of his evil stepmom and stepbro. No one was allowed to be superior or even equal to Ashok in terms of skills because he was the Gary Stu of the show. Even Kalinga,the state which historically suffered the most due to him,was shown in a negative light.

Porus is another example. Before the show began,I thought we would finally get an interesting onscreen rivalry where Alexander and Porus are equals with grey and white shades who respect each other.However the makers opted for the same old clichéd route and turned Alex into a maha kameena as compared to mahaan Puru.

ITV showmakers fail to understand that character development is an essential element in the story and that is what keeps the audience engaged. Why would someone get invested in a character who is perfect from the beginning? Also it's not necessary for the protagonist to be an overpowered superhuman who can do nothing wrong every time. They also kill potential conflict between characters.

Agar inn logon ne Sherlock banaya hota toh likhwake lelo ki usme Moriarty nikamma hota aur saara dimaag Sherlock ke paas hi hota.

Exactly the point I am making. In order to glorify one heroic character, they make the nemesis inhuman, which is incorrect. Historically speaking, Maharana Pratap and Akbar, Porus and Alexander were contemporaries, but what did they show - Maharana Pratap and Porus are like bhagwan ke doot, and Alexander and Akbar, pataal ke keede. Same goes for Ashok.

Arre ye log to Ram aur Raavan ke beech bhi yahi karte hai. Haan, Raavan ne Sita ko kidnap kiya, lekin kya usi baat ke liye you remember him. He was a brahman and one of the most learned men of his time. He is credited with writing the Shiva Tandav Stotra and what not. But all our shows only show him as a horrible womanizer. But Ram, who let his wife go away from his kingdom because he chose to be a good king, that is never counted against him - then what is the difference between Ram and Raavan?

When Pandavas lost everything to Kauravas, Kauravas were considered villains but did the Pandavas do anything less. They staked their own wife - a person. It is different from the kingdom. How can you do that?

They were all human, they were all grey. Some had darker shades. But each and every time ITV just rehashes centuries of conditioning where one has to be bad and the other good. No one for once sees - that this isn't ultimately the fight between good and evil - infact, it is a fight between bad and very bad or very bad and evil.

Originally posted by: libran90

Exactly the point I am making. In order to glorify one heroic character, they make the nemesis inhuman, which is incorrect. Historically speaking, Maharana Pratap and Akbar, Porus and Alexander were contemporaries, but what did they show - Maharana Pratap and Porus are like bhagwan ke doot, and Alexander and Akbar, pataal ke keede. Same goes for Ashok.

Arre ye log to Ram aur Raavan ke beech bhi yahi karte hai. Haan, Raavan ne Sita ko kidnap kiya, lekin kya usi baat ke liye you remember him. He was a brahman and one of the most learned men of his time. He is credited with writing the Shiva Tandav Stotra and what not. But all our shows only show him as a horrible womanizer. But Ram, who let his wife go away from his kingdom because he chose to be a good king, that is never counted against him - then what is the difference between Ram and Raavan?

When Pandavas lost everything to Kauravas, Kauravas were considered villains but did the Pandavas do anything less. They staked their own wife - a person. It is different from the kingdom. How can you do that?

They were all human, they were all grey. Some had darker shades. But each and every time ITV just rehashes centuries of conditioning where one has to be bad and the other good. No one for once sees - that this isn't ultimately the fight between good and evil - infact, it is a fight between bad and very bad or very bad and evil.

Keeping the figures from our religious scriptures aside,I agree with you regarding the point that in order to deliver an interesting fictional story like Naagin for instance one needs to maintain a balance between both sides and show positive and negative traits in both. Western shows like TVD,GoT,etc are are examples of it.

Originally posted by: libran90

I hope this doesn't happen in N5. If Veer is indeed Aakesh then I want him to retain his cunningness and intelligence even after turning positive. Infact he should be positive only for Bani. Baaki sabke liye chalaak cheel hi kaafi hai 😈

BTW I remember you from Savitri forum. I was so crazy about that show and about Rahukaal and Savitri/Damyanti

Originally posted by: LawlessLawyer

So true. Yeh toh ITV waalon ka purana funda hai. Koi kitna bhi bada powerful dark character kyun naa ho pyaar main padke sudhar hi jaata hai😆Aur sudhar ne ke baad apni akal bhi kho deta hai 😭 I quit watching JA after Akbar was dumbed down to depict Jodha as a superwoman.

See, I have no problem with romances. But pyaar me padne ke baad kya individual insaan ka pura nature 360 degree turn le le, that is rubbish. For example, Na Bole Tum Na Maine Kuch Kaha, Mohan was in love with Megha, but at the same time, he was a sharp and caustic investigative crime reporter. That did not change with love. That still remained. Then how did Akbar change so much? Jodha was a strong character agreed, but so was Akbar. Both of them had their own strengths and weaknesses. That does not change with love. So this love changes even the darkest of people is pure rubbish. Love only latches on to people who have, even though minuscule, inherent goodness in them.

I hope this doesn't happen in N5. If Veer is indeed Aakesh then I want him to retain his cunningness and intelligence even after turning positive. Infact he should be positive only for Bani. Baaki sabke liye chalaak cheel hi kaafi hai 😈

I feel they should show that both Bani and Veer are powerful as who they are. They realize their power and use it where necessary. Love ka matlab ye na ho, that individual nature ka bhi loss ho jaye.

BTW I remember you from Savitri forum. I was so crazy about that show and about Rahukaal and Savitri/Damyanti

I remember you from the Beyhadh 2 forum actually. And yes, I loved Rahukaal over Satya any day with Damyanti/Savitri. They had more zing than Satya and Savitri.