seth

Latecomer here, didn't see S2 E1 till last night (Jan 13,2025.) Appreciate the above comments, but I have to ask the most OBVIOUS question that I don't see posted here yet. If all "Silo 2" inhabitants rushed outside (except for Steve Zahn) and died, leaving an abandoned silo with no one inside running the generators, fans, etc. how could there still be breathable air for Juliette after removing her sealed air suit, and where is the electricity coming from to power the scattered lighting we see? Judging by the skeletal remains at the door, virtually the entire population of Silo 2 has been dead a loooong time. Even if the "inner door" stayed well-sealed, preventing the so-called 'poisonous air' from contaminating the inner silo, without a running generator and air source, the inside would have no fresh air to breathe, nor the electricity for the few visible lights and Mr. Moon River's music loop. Come to think of it, even in the first season in Silo 1, what is the air source?? If all outside air is poisonous, and you can only regenerate the same air in an enclosed space for a few weeks at best, how was there decades worth of fresh, breathable air for the 10K in Silo 1? And if you can't go outside and find liquid fuel or some other combustible agent to power the generator, what powered all the lighting and other electrical needs in Silo 1.

Starting this thread, surprised there isn't already one going for this incredible series. Eager for anyone's thoughts. PARTIAL SPOILER ALERT: This series is hard to watch, in spite of fantastic settings, fine acting by all, and glorious cinematography. A beautiful and rebellious couple leave their home town because their family cursed their marriage. They go on to found and build a remarkable town, Macondo, filled with free, loving, generous people, so kind and thoughtful of each other that they don't even need a church, religion or governing authority to treat each other well and flourish. Decades of growth, marriages, children and grandchildren later, shit gets weird - very weird. The Colombian Federal government sends in a despot governor, an unneeded church gets built, and people start going insane. Incestuous children are born, and the tension between the gentle townsfolk and the intruding ruling federales gets reduced to a two overly-simplistic, warring factions, the federales (Conservative Party) and the townsfolk (Liberal Party.) Except, the townsfolk never thought of themselves as members of the Liberal party or any other party. They were just quietly living simple lives in the town they built. The series unfortunately descends into graphic conflict, war and bloodshed from that point on. I suppose both the original author of the revered book - Gabriel Garcia Marquez - and the series writers concluded there wouldn't be much of a gripping story to watch without some violent arc and everybody starting to act very stupid. For me, it's made the series almost impossible to stick with, because, in spite of the incredible cast and scenery, I keep finding myself saying, "Why is everyone in this near-perfect town turning into such idiots? Why are they ruining such a perfect setting?" I guess it's supposed to demonstrate that 'nothing good lasts forever' or 'human minds just can't sustain peace, they have to go looking for trouble,' or some such crap like that. Your thoughts?

double posted, sorry

A very stupidly-placed pure plot device placed into the end of a very intelligent show/season.👎🏻 It's hard to believe the very well-researched and intricate show writers wouldn't realize everyone would go WTF! upon viewing this obvious absurdity. If they just wanted to make sure AJ's conniving VP started next season as the Pres, with all the rife implications for Kate, they could have just as easily had the current Pres die suddenly of any number of ailments - heart attack, stroke, etc, and just had Hal report that after his phone call. But to connect it to the impact of his call is just hilarious and completely non-believable.

The whole sidebar where Andrea feels responsible for the death of her female client because she forgot to call her to tell her that her ex is getting out of jail for a one-day family funeral, who then stalks and kills her, is total bullshit and an absurd plot device by lazy writers. Any criminal lawyer will confirm that: - Yes, violent prisoners can sometimes be let out for a family funeral. Very rare, bur legal in some states. - HOWEVER: They would remain under heavy police or law enforcement custody the entire time of their leave. At least one officer would literally be attached to the guy, even at the funeral. The criminal would have zero opportunity to roam free in LosAngeles, hunt down his ex, and do harm to her. He would be under constant surveillance, maybe even in handcuffs, until he was back behind bars the next day. The guy was a known high-violence wife-beater and an obvious flight risk. Do the Lincoln Lawyer writers actually expect us to believe, on his leave day for the funeral, he was actually allowed to cruise around L.A. on his own. Please! Give your viewers some credit for basic intelligence.

We've watched 4 episodes so far, gonna finish it. Pros: Acting and international settings are superb. Very intriguing story in the Mystery category. Being a wine-geek will help, but anyone who likes a good mystery will still enjoy. Cons: Plot devices and plot set-ups seem contrived in spots; several "that would never have happened" set-ups just to drive the story forward. You'll need to check your 'believability' meter at the door and just enjoy. Also, hard-to-watch in terms of the overt selfishness and manipulativeness of most of the parents. Much of the story centers around a wine-expert father who starts preening his childhood daughter to be a follow-in-my-footsteps clone of him. That alone is child-abuse, but he's also brutally shaming of her when she make mistakes. The child's mother and the Japanese 'competitor's parents are equally self-absorbed assholes who demean their kids every chance they get. So if unfit parents like that make you cringe, you may have trouble making it through the first 4 episodes.

My wife & I have been enjoying/hating this show through Episode 7. If you're a child of the 60s/70s even early 80s, you can't help but get pulled into the whole nascent-to-world-famous rock band narrative. Growing up with Beatles, Zeppelin, CSNY, Fleetwood Mac, et al, it's a shoe-in to want to follow these musicians unfolding evolution, and as a pro record producer for decades, I totally relate to all the drama inside & outside the recording studio. But, as others have also opined, it's difficult to root for Daisy or Billy when they both, each in their own way, are total narcissists. Daisy claimed her time on stage at their Hawaii outdoor concert and hearing her songs come to life in the recording studio were both magic and the most fulfilled she ever felt. Then in this episode she tells Simone it was the most miserable time of her life and she had to irresponsibly bail to Greece with no warning or contact with her bandmates. Doesn't follow, poor writing. Or she's just such damaged goods, her mind & desires no longer make sense, even to her. So we may finish out the series, but damn, is this self-absorbed 'free-spirit ever gonna apologize and get that her my-way-or-the-highway has a big impact on a lot of people. Prob not!😔 Sincerely hope Riley Keough isn't like this in real life...if she pulled that shit on me I'd kick her ass!

'Mechanical Rights' are the royalties paid for playing any song in any recorded format (over radio, TV, use in a film, etc.) They are paid directly to the owner of the 'copyright,' which is usually a publishing company that owns the song, who then keeps a percentage and distributes the rest to the songwriter(s,) or directly to the songwriter if they 'self-published.' So only Knopfler would get 'mechanical' royalties every time the song is played, and even then, only if a long enough portion of the song. Those 4 notes/lyrics when the MTV spaceman appears for 3 seconds may not be enough to warrant any royalties paid. Sting received a one time contributor's fee for his work on Money For Nothing, basically a flat fee. Knopfler gave him an 'honorary' songwriting credit, but no royalties. This addictively fun, scenic show was always full of bogus transparent 'plot devices.' We've always known Emily was going to end up with Gabriel, but the way the writers beat-around-the-bush to get there (Camille & Emily's 'pact,' Camille's female affair, her pregnancy, and the unceremonious exit of gorgeous, caring Alfie) all feels pasted-on and phony. The Parisian location shots and Lily's ebullience make it a hard-to-resist guilty pleasure, but the lazy writers could exercise a little effort and show some respect for the viewers' intelligence.

Sting gets nothing, but Mark Knopfler might. It's not from a Sting/Police song...it's from "Money For Nothing" by Knopfler's Dire Straits

Throwback question to the end of Season 2, please: Incredulity puts me off of shows. At the end of Season 2, Morse is arrested for suspicion of strangling someone to death with the scarf gifted from Monica. In S3E2, we learn he was in prison (prison, not simply jail or holding) for at least a month. I had to call bullshit, massive unbelievability. Yes, the scarf was his, so what? That is the weakest of circumstantial evidence. Was any investigation carried out? Did they locate him at the scene & time of the crime? Was there an inquest, court case, indictment? Holding jails are for 'suspicion,' prison is only for convicted criminals. What was he convicted of, when, by whom and how? Plus, he was a detective himself, with no criminal record. One assumes he would 'make bail,' be released on his own recognizance, and require a hell of lot more than, "the scarf was his" to ever land him back in jail let alone an actual conviction and any prison time. For my wife and I, it just didn't wash. Felt like a cheap plot device to tease & manipulate us, begging for the next season to answer. When, in S3E2, he tells Thursday what his 'month' in 'prison' was like, we turned to each other with WTF?? looks on our face. There are many aspects of this show I like, and a few that put me off (the overbearing opera and heavy classical selections are an unbearable, unnecessary addition.) But the story-line has got to be believable or I'm out.

Ahh, shows my ignorance of the court systems...guess that's cause I'm old and have never been charged with a criminal offense.:-) Thanks dleighg. Still feel like the show was 'meh.' Good, but not great or wild, like say, the The Good Wife, or another David Kelley joint, Boston Legal.

OK series...basic procedural with some nice quirks...Garcia-Rulfo is good but just doesn't have the snap & pop of his namesake played in the original LL movie, Matthew McConaughey. Big WTF question: SO much fuss around original defense attorney, Jerry, bribing juror #7, with $100K. Even if that's true, why would any lawyer spend $100,000 to bribe one juror. That guarantees nothing. Trevor new it was critical to be innocent, and new about the bribery, and even fixed it so Juror #7 remained on the jury during selection, in spite of Haller's strong desire to dismiss him. Why??? Making sure 1 juror votes your way doesn't mean shit. You've got 11 other jurors who could easily outvote you. If Trevor's innocence was that critical, he and Jerry would need to do a lot more than bribe one juror to guarantee his freedom and clean name. And both Trevor and Jerry were (supposedly) very smart, so they would know that. This is the part that just threw me right out of the shows narrative and made me forget about it.

Hehe:) Well, actually it was Joe Mantell (as Mr. Walsh) who delivers that classic line. Bob Hoskins was not in this film. But you're prob right about "Forget it," don't try to suss it out. Of course, if we don't 'sound off' about these show's inconsistencies, what's this forum for?

Just finished Season 4 (yep, a bit late to the binging party:-) I'm sorry, but as addictive as this show is in terms of action, scenery, editing and fine acting, it has become so full of shit - in terms of incredulity, important untied loose ends, dysfunctional 1-gear characters who never evolve, year after year, and obvious plot devices, to make us want to gallup towards S5. I can list all the nonsense we've noted, but I doubt anyone here cares or wants to discuss it (Since Taylor Sheridan isn't onboard and wouldn't take advice from forum posters,:-) and I don't need to shout into my own echo chamber. So many ridiculous liberties taken: - Was John & Rip's slinking into the diner with guns blazing really the right move? Isn't there at least a chance the scumbag robbers would have taken their booty from the patrons and left, no one shot? Procedurally, isn't that the first approach in any hostage situation? Which perhaps might have saved a dead sheriff? Why did no one investigate John & Rip's questionable vigilante choice? - Why no time, not even a moment, to mourn for the collateral casualties of the militia murders? Where's the women and child running away from her flat-tire vehicle as the gunmen gunned down both John and the mother? What happened to Beth's 'secretary' who opened the bomb box? We know Beth got badly burned, did the secretary just get vaporized? Wouldn't it have been more dramatically gripping to connect the backstories of those poor souls caught in the crossfire of John's f'ed-up Vito Corleone stubbornness (yes, friends, it's true - Yellowstone is just "The Godfather" on saddles,) than another 10-15 minutes each episode wasted on horsies doing fancy cut moves in the corral? - Beth to John, end of S4: "Yes Jamie's alive, but now you own him." Really?? John sent him to Harvard, then used the honor's law graduate to literally run expert defense on every snafu Dutton Ranch found itself in, then forced him to run for one political office, took another office away from him, all for John's sake. Painfully obvious John has owned Jamie since he was a pup, but some a'hole writer thinks this is a great revelation on which to end S4?? Obviously, I could go on & on with the glaring inconsistencies...but only if you're interested :-)

This was the episode that made me seriously consider dropping Yellowstone. With crazy Beth, timid Jamie and dead bodies everywhere, this show has always been way over-the-top. But Jamie's Dad Garrett Randle ordering a massive, def-con level 5 , bombs and AK-47's blazing, middle-east terror strike on everyone associated with the Dutton Ranch to 'prove his love' for Jamie just doesn't wash. Sure, he wanted to prove Daddy John never loved him, just used him, while Daddy Garret (MIA for decades??) is his 'real family.' but bombs exploding on a major downtown street, taking non-Dutton-family collateral casualties (what happened to Beth's secretary who opened the box??) and staging enough machine-gunnings to force an immediate Federal level swoop-down and investigation (which, somehow, never materialized??) And all this after John Dutton only did a good deed taking Jamie and never did any real harm to Garrett?? The firepower and all -inclusive death to anything named Dutton just doesn't wash. WTF??? Comes off feeling like Sheridan just can't lay off upping the violence/insanity/dysfunctionality ratio with each episode. Sorry Taylor, this better start seeming real real fast or I'm outta here.