LoveLeigh

Question:

I am not "defending" my specific opinion anywhere at all. I am clarifying a definition of opinion. I have stayed out of argument and repeatedly said it is my opinion only, I am not trying to convince or persuade anybody to agree with me. It is my opinion and I acknowledge I stand alone within that view.

The label would be correct regarding a motte-and-bailey argument if I was part of some "argument" where the arguer (me) is trying to advance a controversial position and convince others, when challenged, that I am only advancing the more modest position. I insist nothing. I am advancing nothing. I stated my opinion and do not care if anybody agrees with me. I am not part of any perceived "argument." I do not even understand the collective "we" (Do "we" think that the scene of Joel and Ellie resting...) which sort of indicates that everybody has to agree with regard to perceptions. All the replies to my opinion sort of are perceived by me as typed by "shadow boxers." Not that I have to accept a challenge which seems subtly confrontational and provide a reply and become defensive but: I like the sets, the scenery, the cinematography, the way some scenes appear to be watercolor paintings, the geographical journey, the stark vast emptiness in some panoramas, the sense of such finality.... and more. ETA: the "more" being the episode with Bill and Frank. I am trans (female to male) and still like men so I am a trans gay male and their story touched my heart.

I am not presenting an "argument." I do not view this as a debate. I stated my personal opinion and I am not trying to convince others to internalize my opinion, and I do not care if anybody agrees with me. I am fine with your conclusions about me (which may or may not be correct) based on my personal opinion about Joel and Ellie's relationship.

Wrong. I am NOT insisting. It is MY opinion. You have yours. There is nothing stubborn in my personal opinion especially when I am not trying to convince or persuade others to agree.

I would not think there would be a "gotcha" moment. However, I worked in CPS, and our first priorIty was always to protect the child regardless of any perceived assumptions. Protection. It would not be considered an appropriate living arrangement for a 14 year old girl to be living alone with a man in his 40s who was not her father or adoptive father or relative. It would be looked at with a jaundiced eye even though there was no evidence at all of any sexual misconduct. So while a father/daughter relationship might be developing between Joel and Ellie, a healthier situation would be considered more acceptable and that is why I said at the first opportunity Joel should have left her back there. At first they were a team traveling together. But within this episode it was (emotional) "needs" that kept them together when there was another option. But this is fiction, a make believe story, a TV show... so it will advance and my opinion remains strong and I accept I stand alone in my perceptions.

You can disagree with my opinion, but with regard to the conclusions about my intent you are totally wrong. I have not even responded here to the many who have disagreed with me... thereby not giving any legs to a debate.

And why is she seeing anything sexual in what he is saying that has nothing to do with sex? In a group situation with others there it might be perceived differently, but they are together traveling alone and I heard it and perceived it the way I did.

A few episodes ago I wrote a comment about what I perceived at times to be an inappropriate traveling team of Joel and Ellie. Reddit called it "sexual tension" between the two and even that reference was considered appalling. However, here I am again noting an inappropriate exchange between the two of them. When Joel is showing Ellie how to shoot that rifle, he says "squeeze the trigger like you love it, gentle steady nice and slow" to which Ellie replies "you gonna shoot this thing or get it pregnant." Joel gives her a look open for interpretation. And just like that, there it is right there. What viewers thought they saw, we now see a glimpse of. Joel should have left her back there... but in order for the show to continue he had to take her. It is too long for those two to be traveling together and it is moving to grey areas of what is inappropriate banter. He is an older man and he is NOT her father.

It was exactly that and it came from the mind of the man who wrote it: Taylor Sheridan. In order for him to think that up as something a man would pay to see for sexual pleasure, it has to be in his own mind... not just something he happens to know about. It WAS gratuitous and the expression on that man's face (I forget his name) clearly showed a sick fuck who got extreme pleasure from watching a woman being whipped. There probably were many who watched it who got turned on too. On another note, I am getting tired of Alex myself. And about Spencer's prophecy about Alex "running that skinny boy ragged?" Spencer just might be who she runs ragged. It might be a good plot twist for her to go home after a few months on the ranch in Montana and a new love interest brought in for Spencer. Her adventure might be short lived.

Well he has to survive for the show to go on. Maybe there is a rewind button somewhere there.

This was a tough episode to watch but a necessary episode. I admire how Teonna fought back but I know many real victims could not. Why does this show end every episode with a cliffhanger?

And I say to that: so what? She is a spoiled rich young girl who ran off with a hot guy and of course she will act like who she is. She owes nobody any explanations for her obnoxious behavior. There are many offensive characters in TV shows and Alex is who she is. If Spencer gets tired of her, he will run. Taylor Sheridan is allowed to craft a character that is totally flawed in today's culture but back then there were many nauseating bitches just like her. So hate her. There are many characters in fictional pieces I despised. I hate Beth on Yellowstone. She literally gives me rage migraines. So maybe Alex actually is Beth's great grandmother. Make sense?

Well I love love love love 1923. If I nitpicked at it because I hated it, I would label myself a masochist and glutton for punishment and my goal is to enjoy what I continue to watch on TV, not get a high blood pressure attack and sit all angry and mad like I am being trolled by a TV show and have to reach for a Xanax. And just like that, my participation in this so called "debate" is over because I also do not intend to get triggered here either. Enjoy the conversation with others, circumvent.... I am not a "hate watcher." I will not waste time analyzing a piece of fiction as if it is a story in the newspaper. It is not the story of Lord Gordon White and his wife, Sita. ETA: I want to BE Alex... just to have Spencer for ONE NIGHT. Yum yum yum.

I accept it... because it is a fake story the same as Valley of the Dolls or Taxi Driver. What abut Citizen Kane (OK they gave us some back story in it)? Who cares how those fake characters got so crazy. These are not authentic documentaries and the stories do not have to make sense or connect dots. They are movies and movies are not real. By the way how did Carrie in Homeland ever get HER job? What a kook she was.

All actually who settled here could have lost the land they stole from the Cusabo, and Catawba and from the Rappahannock and the Chickahominy. Why are only the Duttons selected for that form of denigration and persecution? Again, I suggest viewing the story from an entertainment point of view because the Duttons are not even real. If you choose to view it through a political eye, well go after real people who live in real life like the Duttons because criticizing fake people who do not even exist is to me like analyzing the film Superman. Seriously, how dare they show him bending steel with his bare hands! Are they trying to subliminally indicate that he has white strength?

There it is right there.... what does this TV show have to do with Americans' level of collective self esteem? Midnight Cowboy, Taxi Driver, Leaving Las Vegas, Barfly, and Psycho are a few examples that were films about total losers. I did not view them through a broad lens and draw conclusions about how Americans are portrayed. Those films are about a small section of people and their stories were interesting as fictional films. Even The Godfather presents a small section of a population, and I do not think anybody draws great conclusions with a broad brushstroke. It is for entertainment purposes. I think we have to be careful how far down a rabbit hole we go when we watch fictional shows. The writers do not owe us any level of authenticity or political correctness in pieces with scenes that are clearly fiction. They do not have to cast Alex as a heavy brunette to satisfy some level of not being viewed as "body shaming" or giving elevated status to blondes when they select who will play her. Alex can be a skinny blonde. It doesn't bother me at all.

Yes it is make believe... total fantasy. Taylor Sheridan is not making a documentary so he does not have to be historically correct or appease a need for political correctness. It is all fantasy. It is similar to the films of long ago: Valley of the Dolls or A Summer Place. Total melodrama. And yes, I am loving the "eye candy" and the romance between Spencer and Alex. Loving it. I love "Nicholas Sparks" stuff... I also love Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, Fred Mustard Stewart and Sidney Sheldon. If you don't like it, why watch it? I think these days viewers watch this stuff so they can complain about the lack of political correctness and virtue signal. But I am transgender (female to male) and still love men so that makes me a gay male. And my 23 and me came back and validated I am mostly Ashkenazi Jewish with ancestral roots in Africa and I just discovered I have a whole family of African American relatives in Atlanta..... and hot damn I am loving 1923! It's TV... not meant to be a platform for a political candidate to be challenged so he is not elected.

I watch the show under an umbrella of total make believe, I do not view it as political historical commentary and get triggered to get angry because of the skinny blonde overload. This is not an authentic documentary. I love seeing Spencer and Alex on my screen. They are so romantic together and I adore my total suspension of disbelief. I stopped watching Tulsa King because I hated it after episode 3. It was for me a snoozefest. I don't stick around to watch shows that raise my blood pressure. Even though I like Sylvester Stallone, I never watch any show because of the actors who are in it, so Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren matter not in the least to me. I am drawn to a story, and actually unknowns make the tales more believable. Great acting can never carry any film if the plot itself is not interesting.

Air Date: Feb 12, 2023 This is such a beautiful episode. I am happy this had a pathway to what can develop as so many interesting and more beautiful episodes in this series.

It is strange because I never gravitate to any film or TV show based on who is in it. Never. I am drawn to a story. As a matter of fact, I find famous actors a total distraction and a film with unknowns is more believable.

Wait until you see episode 5. The plot goes beyond ridiculous and then just gets boring.

"I suspect that if Ellie were male or Joel a woman people would be less likely to see any undertones." Not me, it would still have a yuck factor: a weird Mary Kay Letourneau vibe. I just don't like any adult traveling around, sleeping and eating next to a child that is not theirs, and forming a "team" where they protect each other. It is not my cup of tea.

It is in the way the actors interact, the way they look at each other and react to each other, and the way they say the lines and even in a simple gesture like Joel putting on Ellie's seatbelt. I think it was hard to do these scenes as actors. I don't think it is the writers' intention or the actors' intention but when I watch it I feel it and see it. It is a young 14 year old girl traveling with an older man who is not her father and they live in close quarters and they are getting close and it just hits me a certain way when I see it. So sue me lol. ETA: I Googled to see if anybody else was seeing this and came across an old Reddit thread where this was discussed and apparently some people saw it in the video game. I am not a sicko, not a demented degenerate or "pedo" and I saw it without even knowing anybody else saw it years ago. on Reddit 10 years ago re: "100% agree. I am glad most don't see that or feel it. But I guess it is a fact how normalized it is to sexual young girls. It's quite depressing to me." I am not sexualizing her. This is based on what I see in their interactions, the way they talk to each other and in their own expressions and demeanors. There is an undertone that is palpable.

Women and men of course can be friends. But all I am saying is when I watch this particular show as it develops I see at times what could be perceived as "sexual tension" between them. Not all the time, but enough for me to have sensed it. Maybe it is the writing, or the way it is acted, or something else. But I see it and feel it in the most innocuous scenes.