chambersstreet
replied to your
post
:
I made an observation the other day, while...
It’s crazy that I ran into this post because on twitter people were talking about how they hated Scott because he was boring and didn’t have any flaws or whatever, but you could say the same for Captain America and people love his ass.
You see, in my opinion, when they say that “Scott is boring because he doesn’t have any flaws” they are implying something completely different from the common connotation of those words.
Because even the casual viewer of the show should be able to pick up on Scott’s flaws. In early seasons, he tended to panic in fast-moving emergencies, and even later on, he made most of his mistakes during high-pressure situations. He was much better at strategy and emotional intelligence than on-your-feet thinking. He also avoided emotional confrontations with the people he cared about, keeping things to himself that he should have shared with others including his mother, Allison, Stiles, and Kira. I'm sure you could find others if you put your mind to it.
But that’s not what they mean when they say that ‘Scott’s Boring because he has no flaws.’ Instead, they mean one of two things.
First, they mean that being boring disqualifies him from being the hero/lead of the show. This is what they really wanted. Those people who are fans of your example, Captain America, didn’t want to change his movies into being about someone else, so complaining that he’s flawlessly boring wasn’t on their agenda.
They wanted Derek or Peter or Stiles to be the lead of the show, because they wanted the show to be about something else entirely. The show had certain themes -- the conflict between friendship and responsibility, the futility of revenge, the inherent right of every person to define who they are for themselves. But these themes didn’t lead to the hero killing people for looking at his mate wrong or massacring others because of a two-hundred year old sin. It wasn’t really Scott McCall they found boring, it was the show’s take on morality.
Second, they mean that the flaws that Scott had do not disqualify him from being the hero/lead of the show. What they wanted was for Scott to have a flaw that would make him no longer be the alpha or no longer be the focus of the show. Think of all the fanon stuff you see where Derek is still alpha, Stiles is Derek’s lover/right-hand man/emissary, and Scott is ... well ... somewhere over there in the background.
As a side note, this is also why they tried to magnify Scott’s few flaws into bigger ones -- such as Scott is sexually obsessed, or that Derek considered the Bite sacred and that the forced neck grab in Master Plan was tantamount to rape, or that him not automatically forgiving Stiles for lying to him in Lies of Omission was gaslighting -- so they could have a flaw big enough to disqualify Scott as hero.
There was a popular theory going around as Season 5 approached of the Schism -- that the season would see a permanent split between Scott and Stiles, and that Stiles would have to lead people against Scott, who would be revealed as the ultimate Big Bad of the series. You could feel the excitement that this idea generated, because it would finally mean that the series would become about Stiles. (It didn’t happen, because the series was Scott’s story.) Their enthusiasm for Scott to fall to darkness was never about their desire to see Scott ‘less boring,’ but about their desire to see their white favorite characters become the focus of the show.
You see, the claim that Scott was boring was never about what Scott did or didn’t do. It was about replacing a Latino hero with someone they liked better, namely some broody white character.
