TV Tropes Org
site search
Glee back to reviews
Comments
America’s Favorite Cliché Storm
A critic is expected to present certain shades of grey. As a result, modern reviews are filled with weak, almost self-contradictory clauses of “Absolutely golden, with the following flaws” and “Terrible, but not without it’s good points”. This is a show that allows me to, for a brief moment, break that trend. A show that allows for a single pure, unambiguous reaction.

Glee sucks.

Glee sucks unrepentantly. Glee sucks in a manner so flawless and complete that one has to admire the brazenness of it. Glee sucks enough to create a singularity of bad writing and half-assed covers strong enough to pull in the couch potato hivemind. Glee sucks in a way that makes the average teen sitcom's cookie-cutter characters and heavy-handed themes appear more complex than Paradise Lost. Glee is the modern avatar of suck.

This show’s survival in the same timeslot as Lost and Community is nothing short of a dark miracle. I recommend it slightly less than Ebola.

Eh, I like it.
comment #4201 Phrederic 29th Aug 10
Then your stomach is far stronger than mine. Enjoy it.
comment #4257 Imp 1st Sep 10
you watch community, your argument is invalid loljk there is no argument. TRY HARDER
comment #4360 76.175.245.185 8th Sep 10
To clarify, you probably need more concrete arguments for a review than "it sucks".
comment #4443 HinduGoddess 15th Sep 10
Indeed. If only I'd said something about writing quality, song quality, derivative characters, and dropping anvils like they're going out of style.
comment #4488 Imp 19th Sep 10
I think this review requires something a little more substantial that proves you've actually watched the show, otherwise this is another case of complaining about shows you don't watch. Anybody can toss out criticisms like bad writing and anviliciousness. Just provide an example of one of the many anvils they dropped.

And for what it's worth, I agree with you. Lost & Community > Glee.
comment #4501 Byemus 19th Sep 10
I don't like Glee either. It's too cherry for my taste. The brain-dead smiles of the actors as they perform covers of taste-like-diabetes songs irks the crap outta me. Plus it's funny how usually mean-spirited stereotypes, like the libby and the jock, while portrayed mostly faithfully in the show, fall flat of appearing even remotely menacing due to their inability to screw with the main characters, for no reason other than them being incredibly stupid. Talk about Villain Ball. And they are so silly that, when it's all said and done, they can even come across as sympathetic characters.

While the show mostly revolves around the rivalry between Schuester's and Sylverster's clubs, there is hardly any noticeable antagonism. Sue Sylvester works specially bad as a rival/villain, because she is such an eccentric and a Cloud Cucko Lander, and not very smart to boot. It gets tiresome to see Sylvester attempting to threaten Schuester - with that comically deadpan expression on her face, no less - only for said threats to lead to absolutely nothing meaningful.

I know the show is supposed to be a musical *comedy*, but these ideas simply don't work very well in context.

All in all, Glee is too happy, too pretty, and feels to fake to be likeable. And the show is made even worse - at least to me - on account that most of the songs that are performed in it are simply not my cup of tea.
comment #4502 201.21.181.166 19th Sep 10
See, that's why I like Jane Lynch as Sue Sylvester. She's been given a character with very few tools. We all know that Glee club is going to triumph in the end in a joyous sea of rainbows, and thus the villain can't be too intelligent because she'd easily thwart the hapless Glee club and that would make the audience very sad. Still, she's more than a match for Schue, who can barely keep his own twelve-member club from imploding.
comment #4503 Byemus 19th Sep 10
u mad?
comment #4538 76.175.245.185 23rd Sep 10
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you all should have given the show some more time. sue does end up getting Glee Club in the 12th episode.
comment #4593 cheeseypoofs 27th Sep 10
That was great, you should write for Sue.
comment #4786 Alden2 15th Oct 10
Can you explain WHY you think Glee sucks? I'm just saying, a good review must not only say whether something is good or bad, but it must say WHY something is good or bad. Your review here doesn't really say much other than you think Glee sucks.
comment #5236 BlackbirdMizu 25th Nov 10
"All in all, Glee is too happy, too pretty, and feels to fake to be likeable. And the show is made even worse - at least to me - on account that most of the songs that are performed in it are simply not my cup of tea." Explain to me how being too happy makes a show bad? I'm very confused on that point. I can understand if you think the show is saccharine, but saying you don't like a show because it is happy makes you sound very depressed.
comment #5422 Drolyt 12th Dec 10
Reviews have shades of grey for a reason. It's not because critics are wishy-washy, it's because a good reviewer recognizes and anticipates that his tastes are not shared by everyone. Without that, it's just Complaining About Shows You Dont Like or Gushing About Shows You Like, neither of which is helpful or even meaningful to to the reader.
comment #5544 troacctid 26th Dec 10
^There's plenty of people who would rather view the world in black and white. And then cry when reality isn't so simple.
comment #5547 76.120.177.0 27th Dec 10
Very true troacctid (I think that's a stellar name for a line of medication if you ever get some capital), but that's part of my point. This show sucked to such a degree that I couldn't pull out the conventional "but at least there's X". In Glee, I found a program without mitigating qualities.
comment #5624 Imp 3rd Jan 11
What point are you trying to get across?
comment #5694 68.4.78.250 8th Jan 11
^ That glee sucks. I am amazed you didn't get that.
comment #5733 pimpdaddy 10th Jan 11
^^ That he sucks as a reviewer. I am amazed you didn't get that.

As for Glee... Your Mileage May Vary. To me, the good parts are So Cool Its Awesome, the bad parts are So Bad Its Good, and the happy LIGHTING and COLOURS (Glee's characters really aren't a happy bunch when they aren't singing) is more of a Crapsaccharine World IMHO. I especially like how the characters are walking stereotypes that still manage to deconstruct and subvert themselves considerably.

Also, the Klaine Kiss is TELEVISION HISTORY.
comment #6891 Ardiente 17th Mar 11
"I especially like how the characters are walking stereotypes that still manage to deconstruct and subvert themselves considerably."

The deconstruction card, along with irony and winking to the audience, is vastly overused. People invoke it to cover bad writing. I recently read Zack Snyder excuse the babes with guns (and prominent bare thighs, which on the basis of Watchmen I take to be a Snyder fetish) in his forthcoming Suckerpunch as not really babes with guns, but rather "a commentary on" babes with guns, an inversion of sexism which can still be enjoyed with a wink and a nod, or something. What a load of crap. I'm absolutely sure Suckerpunch will be no different on this account than, say, Barbed Wire. He wants to make a movie about babes with guns, no more.

In the case of Glee, I can honestly not tell the difference between these characters and theoretical straight characters with the same qualities. Aside from the fact that they're supposedly tongue in cheek. No doubt they are unserious, but what comedic characters aren't? I don't just mean in this, the so-called Age of Irony. When weren't comedic characters ever foundationalist? (is that the opposite of deconstructionist? I forget. Whatever, I'm going with it) Was I supposed to take Falstaff, Don Quixote, or Tartuffe at face value? No. Yet they were fully developed and realized fake human beings, as opposed to the gross stereotypes of Glee.

Which is not to compare an hour long musical sit-com/after school special with the masterpieces of the Western cannon. I'm just saying "deconstruction" is not an excuse for gross stereotypes, banal plots, and overall cloyingness. Them "subvert[ing] themselves" does not nullify them being "walking stereotypes." There is a place for walking stereotypes: an SNL sketch, for instance. Not a show we're supposed to take seriously.
comment #6979 63.231.186.43 22nd Mar 11
Agreed, but with a caveat.

Deconstructions get boring, you don't have to make some uber-complex analysis of a genre whenever you make a movie or TV show or whatever, what happened to taking cheesy characters, goofy concepts and ridiculous plot lines and just rolling with them?

If you were to look at Glee's characters and dialogue and such, you could easily say it's an awful show, I can't refute that statement, but your problem is looking at the show like it's supposed to be a serious, thought provoking drama, it's Dawsons Creek: The Musical. Taking it seriously is like looking at The Rocky Horror Picture Show and thinking about it logically, you're kinda missing the point. (Admittedly, there is way to much drama sometimes, but those scenes can be easily ignored).

p.s. Sucker Punch! Looks incredible because it's so ridiculous. Straight up drama can be fine, but Goofy Over the Top action movies can be just as entertaining.
comment #6987 Phrederic 23rd Mar 11
"but your problem is looking at the show like it's supposed to be a serious, thought provoking"

I did say it was merely an hour long sit-com/after school special. Which would be fine, don't get me wrong, if only it were a good sit-com/after school special. I don't expect that much from it, just more than an SNL skit. Somewhere between juvenile/facile and Shakespeare/Cervantes; there's plenty of room.

By the way, I was supposed to take Dawson seriously? I know they did the occasional "Don't Pick on the Gay Kid" and "Underage Drinking Is Dangerous" episode, but I thought it was mostly about sesex. The sexy and/or fumblingly awkward romantic kind, not the "AIDS Kills" kind.
comment #7067 63.231.137.243 26th Mar 11
Funny, I had no idea Sue Sylvester was a troper.
comment #7293 LunaAvril 17th Apr 11
@Reviewer: Are you sure this isn't a comment instead of a review? :p
comment #8152 chihuahua0 18th Jun 11
Amen, reviewer. You speak the truth.
comment #10712 InkyMcInkerson 11th Oct 11
A critic is expected to present certain shades of grey. As a result, modern reviews are filled with weak, almost self-contradictory clauses of “Absolutely golden, with the following flaws” and “Terrible, but not without it’s good points”.
I couldn't care less about Glee, but this part shows ignorance of how criticism works.

Nothing is perfect if you dig far enough. Even the best movies tend to have flaws that you can write paragraphs about. The phrease "absolutely golden" merely means "It's awesome!" in review-speak. Similarly, the word "terrible" does not mean "Irredeemable". Because tastes vary, critics will often spend times on the contrarian aspects because those can appeal to or turn off audiences just as much as the main problems/good parts.
comment #10996 Scardoll 23rd Oct 11
In order to post comments, you need to Get Known
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy