The Soda Shop Message Boards

What would you think if you turned on an AIO... and everyone acted wiser... more mature... differently?
Characters evolve over time as part of their lives. Their hearts change. I wonder what it would be like to listen to Connie Comes to Town, and then turn on a show with Connie mourning for Mitch, or a scene with her gently soothing Penny. It would feel like a jolt.
Connie's changed.
Even Whit doesn't seem the same all the time. Sometimes he's jovial and making cracks, sometimes he's dead serious. Early on, Whit strikes Monty. One can't imagine Paul Herlinger or Andre Stojka's Whit doing anything of the kind. One feels almost certain he would either handle it differently, or regret his actions later. The purpose of this article is not to say whether this change is positive or negative, but you see the point. Even Whit, the steady voice of wisdom and kindness, changes.
How would you like your favorite AIO character's to end up? How do you hope they'll grow and change? Which characters would you hate to change?
As mentioned on other topics, Connie's become too motionless and irrelevant. Also that Emily needs to end up in a situation where she realizes she can't fix everything quickly, forcing her to take more gradual measures and compromise. Interestingly, there's the occasional assertion that Eugene needs to become more mature. There's no hurry for that. Eugene has married, after all, that shows quite a bit of maturity. More important, a character must have flaws. Or else they're not characters.
That's another important point. We like to complain about things we dislike in a character. Wooton's too crazy and shows up much more than necessary. Whit's new voice takes some adjusting to. Emily... errrr... according to some, is yesterday's dog barf.
But a character can't be a perfect role-model. Or he or she means nothing.
So, what are your thoughts? Let's talk it up.

Could I make the argument that Whit has primarily changed because of the voice actor? Similarly to how Jack and Jason represented different sides of Whit when he was gone, Paul and Andre have brought different things to Whit that Hal never did.

Connie seems to have dematured since the relaunch. She also is on a plateau where she helps Penny and had the conclusion to the Mitch storyline...but that's it. I thought Something Old... showed real growth in Connie; the first in a while, and i hope that she's soon given a storyline to continue to grow; after all, she's a main character!

Wooton has also dematured; he doesn't really give advice to kids, and when he does, it's Wootonized craziness advice (see: Target of the Week, Opposite Day). However, he has improved since then with Wooton Knows Best, Anger Mismanagement, and Child's Play. Hopefully he can remain on an upswing.

Well, I agree with whittaker96. Though I enjoyed most of the episodes in Album 51, things have settled back down to normal Odyssey and matured back to normal level. The reason we didn't react to the new characters when Album 29 rolled around was that we had a Whit voice, as Paul Herlinger, which sounded a lot like the original Smith voice. But when we went through all the changes again, but with an entirely different Whit voice, that really effected the whole situation that much more.

I suppose I agree with all of you, though the topic has switched topics just a bit since PF started it. I think that Hal brought a loving, grandfatherly, sense to Whit. But he could also be a bit gruff and stern when he needed to be. (Spanking Monty) Paul brought an adventurous side to Whit that Hal had brought before, but Paul's Whit seemed, to me at least, even more so adventurous. He also was great at the advice-giving in those days, and the Paul Whit gave advice differently than the Hal Whit. Now, Andre has taken up the role. He's created quite a different Whit. Whit still gives advice, but he doesn't seem to be as clever with it as he used to be. He makes more jokes than he ever has before, and he's not in the center of the action like he used to be. Keep in mind that I'm at least relatively satisfied with Andre's performance, unlike some fans, but I do think that so far, he's the worst Whit yet. This is just my opinion, so please don't start yelling at me in all caps.

whittaker96 wrote:Could I make the argument that Whit has primarily changed because of the voice actor? Similarly to how Jack and Jason represented different sides of Whit when he was gone, Paul and Andre have brought different things to Whit that Hal never did. remain on an upswing.

Interesting thought Josh (or do I need to call you Whit?), although I don't entirely agree. I think it's majoratively up to the writers to decide how characters react to situations, and AIO has cycled through many a writers teams through the years. Sure, the voice actors has some input, and it's been said the the writers base some of their writing off how the actor plays the character, but I think it's mostly because everyone seems to have their own idea of "who Whit really is", and whenever someone else writes an episode about him, he'll act more like their "version" of him.

Basicly, everyone changes. If we are a Christian, our whole life should be centered on becoming more like Him, which means change. I think that the characters evolving (for lack of a better word) show that the writers put thought into the characters instead of a long-running show where no one ever changes. Things that annoyed me about some of the series of books I read in Elementary School (Boxcar Children, Animal Ark, etc.) was how the characters never changed. Violet was always shy, Benny was always eating, and they all stayed the same age. Having the character change and have flaws shows realism, and I like that.

The writers and directors mostly make the decisions, though the actor's role remains unfathomably key. Writers and directors give the characters potential to have a soul, the actors breath in that soul.
So, some changes have a lot to do with different actors. But certainly not all, possibly not even the majority. After all, even one of the changes that was specifically mentioned before, that Whit is arguably a bit less out in the road in the midst of the action than he used to be in general, points to the fact that the changes simply can't be just actors. How would Andre make Whit less active?

Or, if it's true the writers and directors mainly craft and re-craft the characters, why would they make a conscious decision to have Whit out of the action more? Or why would they think a drawn-back Whit would be more suited to Andre?

And, yes, Godsgirl, change is part of the beauty of AIO characters, and all good characters. In fact, to change of the heart is perhaps the only thing that can truly make a character excellent.

whittaker96 wrote:Wooton has also dematured; he doesn't really give advice to kids, and when he does, it's Wootonized craziness advice (see: Target of the Week, Opposite Day). However, he has improved since then with Wooton Knows Best, Anger Mismanagement, and Child's Play. Hopefully he can remain on an upswing.

Ahh. And that's what everyone loves about Wooton. He never grows up.

Whit struck Monty?

He slapped him?

Or spanked him?

Jana accused Whit of striking Monty, ("You know how I feel about that, Dad.) but I believe Whit says something to the extent of "I spanked him, if that's what you mean. He needed discipline."

And he was quite right.

What's the difference between hitting and spanking? You smack someone in both cases. The only difference is in the case of spanking humiliation is added for good measure.
That's not to say it's something parents should never do. I'm not a parent, I have no idea if it's acceptable in practice. I know my parents used to do it to us, if rarely. But, play what Whit himself called, "The Name Game" if you want, but hitting someone is hitting someone.
In any case, the fact remains its something Whit wouldn't do today, which is fascinating if nothing more.

But the term "striking" is normally used in cases of abuse or violence, neither of which pertained to Whit in that instance.

I agree with the old judge on this one. The term "strike" is coralated with abuse these days. To some the word discipline might also have that association, but in the instance of Whit, it was simply discipline. Monty was being a disrespectful brat, and needed a reality check. Whit also sat down with him and explained why he did what he did... I find that good discipline.

To go to the original question or point of this post: I sometimes find myself wishing Penny would just stop being so.... Soooo.... Ignorant? Naive? She can be a bit ditzy ALL the time and I can find myself getting irrated. I find myself wishing she would mature. A LOT.

Essentially Liz, what you and OJ are arguing is that the connotations of "spanking' and "striking" are different. You are correct. However, as far as the actions go, they are synonyms. What does one do when one spanks someone? You make contact with someone's body with force calculated to deliver pain. Isn't that called hitting? If you think spanking is an acceptable parental practice, that is quite alright. Very possibly it is. But if you think that, you should at least be comfortable calling it a more general term rather than a term that is associated with discipline. Its not the connotations that matter, its the action itself.
EDIT: I did mean to mention it's not as if punched Monty in the stomach, certainly. Spanking does mean you are hitting, ahem, a certain place. However, if you are not striking the *cough* buttocks, what precisely are you doing? Again, what is the actual difference in the action itself?
Penny is very sweet as she is. It's a pity you think that, and you're not alone. If you find her naivete frustrating rather than amusingly charming, then that can't be helped. But I for one, hope Penny doesn't change for a long while yet.

I might add that spanking usually occurs on the rear end, which is sufficiently padded so as to not incur any damage.

And Penny is pretty ditzy, 'Con. But I must say, she isn't as annoying as a certain Buck-crusher I could mention...

Helios wrote: But I must say, she isn't as annoying as a certain Buck-crusher I could mention...

PF is gonna have to change the name of the topic...

Okay, okay, I'll be good and not mention her! (too late!)

Poundy's probably gonna squash me when he sees what I've done to his beautiful topic. *snicker snicker*

That is true, PF. But you also have to take into consideration that these days, if someone gets wind that you're "striking" your child, that your child could get taken away for "abuse." So if you refer to "spanking" as "striking" then there's a bigger chance of your kid getting taken away.
But in theory, yes, spanking and striking are the same thing.

As far as Penny: I will admit that when she first came onto the scene, I really enjoyed her. She was fun, sweet and innocent. Her similarites to Wooton were enjoyable.
But the difference between the two is that Penny hasn't reached a spiritual maturity...
For example: Wooton, in all his fun and games, can come to a seriousness. Whether is was when he was talking to Grady in the tree house about God, or dealing with his father, or trying to tell Penny something... He has the capacity to be deep.
So far I haven't really seen that in Penny. Even when she's learning her "lessons" I really feel like their hitting a brick wall.
Maybe she'll get better over time, I don't know... But for now she can be a bit to ditzy for me.

Punzy, hush! You better leave you know who out of it *glares*

Maybe they're waiting to develop Penny more fully. I haven't heard most of the recent episodes, but it seems they're focusing more on the kids right now.

Yeah, Lexicon, I know. But I can't help my dark side...