Was gaping a bit when this episode-debacle started to unfold, but was soon alternating between grinning and laughing in mild hysterics through the rest of the episode.
Thanks to the CVs for having provided such disastrous tracks for so very many months since last year onwards that it helped inure to yet another backfiring miscalculated track full of engineered dialogues and sympathy gambits.
This episode had everything so blatant, that they just needed to add the CVs personified as a momentary character and standing in a penance-position on one leg with arms upraised in prayer to the majority-audience "This time let the sympathy-gambits work, and you sympathize where we need you to. Don't be unmalleable in your tastes and your memory about the actual words and deeds of the characters contradicting their newest engineered dialogues. Support whom we want you to. You've *never* done that for any of our scores of sympathy-gambits for over a year in this series, but we live in the fondest selfdeception and are convinced with each new track that you'll react as per our convenience this time."
From JM's, Radha's and Bittuji's dialogues, one would have assumed that JM reacted sacrificingly when her supposedly dear foster-uncle first got in peril, rather than when he was at presumptive worst-case.
Even then, if Leelawati had kept silent, JM and Radha would have let Bittuji bounce from the hospital to the jail.
A pity that the previous events were televised in episodes, so the claims of the two noble-minded ladies didn't get corroborated by the absence of contradicting scenes.
Female leads have been shown walking on pieces of glass and/or with their *whole* hand held *into* a fire, and their promptly forgiving the husband and/or sasuraal got invariably excellent viewership at best and unreduced viewership at worst.
Here, the female lead constantly refers to her husband and in-laws as *animals*, though they have - from the village track onwards - shown more humane concern (not just talk of concern) for their loved ones than she has.
So if she wants to bring them to her conceptualized level of humane (though not as exaltedly noble as her own guaranteedly mass-unappreciable characterization from the 2nd week of May 2014 onwards), mass-audience are likely to react like in the village-track and the court-case track and cruise past the episodes and consider whether or not to give a second chance after the mass-unappealing track concludes - regardless of whether she wins or loses - since her efforts and her selfperception are assured of being totally contrary to mass-audience.
Other channels see that the spirited female lead retaliating confrontationally to her sasuraal causes the viewership to start to dip, and promptly stop the process by thereafter having her do all her spirited talk against outsiders while enduring respectfully at home.
Don't know how much online criticism existed or not for those tracks, but the viewership becomes and remains absolutely superb by the simple stratagem of catering to the majority-audience and focussing on the surety of thereby getting the needed massive adequate millions of viewership month after month.
This series looks at online praise and criticism and tailors the tracks accordingly, exactly the opposite of what the majority-audience can be counted on to watch or switch channels for.
Not only JM but her two positivity-paragon champions use the word 'jaanwar' repeatedly, not only for the other half of the lead couple but also his family. Would the CVs like to go back into memorylane for the more intricate statistical data for what Padmini being used as spokesperson for the 'raakshas' front did to her previous popularity with majority-audience?
A supporting character can be a saint, but the mass-audience watches the series for the lead couple. If the lead couple is the only factor that draws them to the series, then any character given to badmouth the male lead and hinder the couple's togetherness should prepare in advance for losing his/her own however cherished popularity with majority-audience, resulting in the role being drastically curtailed.
And here, they have decided to scapegoat - not just a supporting character whose however major role can be scuttled when necessitated by averse reaction from mass-audience - but rather the serial's female lead with a characterization which can be assured to appall the conservative majority-audience with her obnoxious judgmental snobbery, with her opinion before being assaulted not much different from her opinion thereafter.
Did the CVs at least consider that if the reactions before and after a catastrophe are identical, it may not help even remotely with convincing the nonfandoms mass-audience to empathize or give a damn about the catastrophe?
The invariably mass-unappealingly packaged fictional bad times are forcefed and attempted to shove through, ensuring the mass-audience dedicatedly stick to its routine of either skipping the episodes or switching the channel in between, keeping the viewership consistently in the 1+ TRP spectrum.
Presumably, there is a record which has to be broken of having a track's viewership-crash be even faster than for the previous track.
Female leads are usually empathized with and supported by the general public, and its effect is seen in proportionately reassuring viewership, and the survival of the track and the series with massively enough millions of viewership.
That formula applied to serials across the board ensures the likewise survival and viewership-success of the channel.
Our female lead's every move has been foreseaably sure to have an extremely unenthusing effect on mass-viewership.
When she should have been shown strong for her husband and against the antagonist, they showed her as neither shrewd nor effective, but it was at least mitigated to some extent by her loving persona.
When she should have been shown conflicted in her feelings about the sudden personality-difference in her husband after his recovery, she was shown easily repudiating her marriage (because her husband didn't share her dreamy belief that confessing to killing without tangible exonerating proof would result in her expected consequence of his being freed and their resuming conjugal life).
When she should have been shown respectful to family-elders and slowly winning them over, she was shown 'spirited' and confrontational.
The CVs apparently forgot that majority-audience has never yet in over a decade or two bothered to watch any track of female lead as new bahu spirited confrontational unless it was to see a revisiting of 'Taming of the Shrew'.
Not to watch her triumph, but rather to give a chance to the next track if she is shown satisfactorily defeated in her untraditional behaviour.
Did the CVs consider that while online audience would agonize at her yielding but cheer for her fighting to *not* honour her marriage and her sasuraal, the mass-audience would give the series the needed massive viewership only for a track of her conduct appealing to their sensibilities, and an assurance of continued viewership-lack if a progressive track was tried to be forcefed to them.
The mass-audience has several programmes options to watch at every screentime. If one wants to know which of the many channels offerings of serials have most pleased the mass-audience, one needs to see only the total viewership for each serial and channel. Those results have not been changing in their proven evidence of the majority-audience's tastes and preferences unvaryingly consistent year after year. The crores of viewers can switch channels, whereas no channel can get crores of viewers out of thin air to replace the majority-audience and ensure a track's continuance by avoiding embarrassing viewership-lack.
A hint to the CVs, every disrespect by JM, Radha and Bittuji to Raja ensures mass-condoning for Raja's every action.
As for the precap's idiotic sympathy-gambit of a wick alight in her palm, they could show her hand ablaze and it would not get her mass-sympathy after the several 'jaanwar' epithets which she and her kin use regardless of whether the Kushwahas do nothing or act brutally.
If damned for doing and damned for not, then mass-audience will condone them for doing more worse than this series has ever shown.
The series may get exhausted by the levels of atrocity they may show as sympathy-gambits, but those levels won't match to even a portion of the mindboggling extents mass-audience condones in the male lead without a qualm.
While trying their usual failed strategy for sympathy-gambits to get mass-audience to support the female lead, they should perhaps keep in mind that sympathy gambits have never worked in any series. Crores of people like a character or they don't like the character, for whatever reason of preference. Who they like, they forgive even for massacring every supporting-character. Who they don't like, they forgive nothing. There is no engineered dialogue and no sympathy gambit that works in any series, however long it's tried.
Every disrespect shown by JM/Radha/Bittuji does not make them righteous crusaders that the mass-audience will support, but rather gets the conservative majority-audience's sympathy for Raja for the disrespect he endures from his wife and her kin.
Could the CVs please stop with the dratted burning-wick-in-palm nonsense tomorrow?
The only people who are going to get upset are all of us, whereas the millions of viewership needed may be counted on to react uncritically to Raja reacting more harshly to every forthcoming disrespect from JM and her championing kin.
It is the same mass-audience which has always ensured excellent viewership for popular lead-couple marital-rape tracks where the wife promptly covers up what she endured and gradually reconciles with her husband.
Crores of people don't change their preference of what they are willing to watch daily for a half-hour, and most don't even congregate online to express their viewing-preferences or defend their sensibilities. They simply watch without switching the channel, or they switch the channel. It ensures that a track gets labelled as success or as failure.
Please, show a mass-appealing track of reconciliation that the mass-audience could be counted on to tune in for, rather than a disrespectful female lead's 'spirited' crusade that they may be assured of skipping as they have every track for so very many months, ensuring every consecutive track's closing with not enough millions of viewership. Let this track show a positivity that the desperately needed massive viewership would be willing to accept watching. Please?
Edited by leelaa9 - 11 years ago
Cricket
