Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Ronin Jackson

Member
  • Posts

    562
  • Joined

Everything posted by Ronin Jackson

  1. That was a tough one for me. The character deaths that get to me the most are sometimes the supporting characters. These deaths had a very similar feeling to (Breaking Bad Spoiler): This was similarly deflating, and very much by design. We were strung along to keep hoping they had a chance out. There was the comedy of pretty much the entire thread leading up to the arrival of the house, then the temporal fake out editing of the cop raid.. Even cutting away before we see the deaths. Esmail and co did a fine job punching us in the gut, and I hope there's a good reason for it. I also though it was really cool that two members of the OG F Society crew were played by Indian American actors, even if they weren't playing Indian Americans. Though the show always seems to have an abundant rotation of South Asian American/Canadian actors, which is a neat and very unusual quirk about the show, But it still makes these particularly brutal deaths a little tougher to take.
  2. I loved the episode. I watched it twice last night and love it more the more I think about it. I'd long commented that episode 29 of the original series was the most bizarre hour of television ever made, and it's only fitting that an episode of the new series would overtake it. I definitely understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea. But there are those saying Showtime shouldn't have allowed Lynch to make an episode like this. I couldn't more vehemently disagree with that opinion. I'm willing to deal with art I don't care for if it means artists have more creative freedom. The anger of the people who think this episode shouldn't be allowed to exist is delightful. Almost nothing like this is ever created and they are angry that this miraculously came to fruition? Again you don't need to like it, but if artists having creative freedom pisses you off you deserve to be angry.
  3. Also this: The white mother thing is the same creature that killed the couple in New York. The same actress is credited in both episodes as "Experiment Model" in part 1 and "Experiment" here.
  4. His face isn't all over the place yet. The bus benches come later. He used a billboard once, temporarily. And all his commercials ran during re-runs of Murder She Wrote. It's hardly out of the realm of possibility that an agent for an insurance company may not be familiar with him. As for as the legal community in ABQ, their opinion of him isn't going to matter to the clientele he will soon be targeting-- criminals. In fact that may be the one market left where his unsavory reputation wouldn't effect, and perhaps even could enhance, his credibility. It's actually clear from what we know of him in BB that he will eventually take his reputation and embrace it, transform it into something that would appeal to his new clientele.
  5. One thing this episode established very well is why Jimmy is going to change his name to Saul. Before this episode that aspect of the story was unclear. But this episode established enough that to make the name change make sense. It's still a mystery how Chuck's death will affect Jimmy but changing his name could work as both a rebuke and a way to honor what Jimmy might believe would be Chuck's wish. It's also established that the name of Jimmy McGill is now tarnished, which also establishes why Saul will eventually tap into the type of clientele that eventually becomes his base (criminals are not going to be bothered by things the elderly might)). Going back to an earlier episode-- I wonder if changing his name will be a way for him to skirt around the insurance rate hikes as well..
  6. My prediction is next season, after a Gene teaser, will open with a flashback of Jimmy and Chuck, with Michael McKean back in his role at least one more time. Jimmy went a long way towards Saul this season, but Jimmy made a comeback in the season finale. He's not quite all the way Saul yet, so there's still more story to tell there. Chuck's death will be a big part of that I imagine. I'm not going to predict just how Jimmy will react. Will he feel guilt that he may have driven his brother to suicide? Will he feel that Chuck brought all of it on himself? A good bit of both perhaps? I would think another part of what turns Jimmy all the way Saul is whatever happens with his relationship with Kim. There's a whole story there and I don't think these writers will rush it. But it sure seems like Kim and Jimmy will have to drift a long way apart before Jimmy can become Saul. I'm thinking that moment when Jimmy becomes Saul Goodman, may still be many episodes off. Maybe even a whole season. It's probably been about a month tops since Jimmy had his law license suspended. Eleven months can be a long time in the Breaking Bad/Saul universe. Breaking Bad took four plus seasons to cover a years time. There was only one notable time jump at the end of the series (not counting various flashbacks/flashforwords). There could be a time jump next season with Saul but I think there's still a lot of things that need to happen in the story first.
  7. Jimmy manipulating the ladies to turn on poor Irene was definitely a big leap towards becoming Saul Goodman, but I wonder if it's really that far removed from the warm, charismatic Jimmy we were introduced to earlier. Even if his intent was never harmful, Jimmy has never been above manipulating old people for his personal gain. Now he's crossed the line into potentially ruining a poor old lady's simple existence for his personal gain, but it's only a nudge of desperation that got him there. I'm impressed once again with how Gilligan and Gould handle the evolution of characters over time. This is quite unique to their shows. Look at some of the other great dramas... The Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men, The Shield, etc... the characters at the end of the show are not necessarily that different from how they started (I might give Mad Men a slight exception there). But In Gilligan's shows the characters completely transform. For a while it was hard to see how Jimmy would become the unsavory Saul Goodman, but now we are seeing it happen and it's easier to see that the signs were always there.
  8. I've seen this comment a lot lately from fans (and not just with regards to Twin Peaks... it happened with the Samurai Jack revival as well). My question is, who gets to define what feels like Twin Peaks? The fans or Mark Frost and David Lynch? The thing about Twin Peaks is, the tone has always shifted, and it always jarred a certain segment of the fans. When season 2 started with this lengthy, deliberately paced sequence involving the waiter and the Giant, it was a major shift in tone from what was established in season 1. In fact there were several tone shifts in those opening episodes of season 2... much more slapstick comedy, characters completely transformed (literally overnight because Season 2 started the day after Season 1 ended). Some of that was good, some was bad, but the waiter/Giant seen made a lot of people restless at the time. It's now considered an iconic Twin Peaks scene though. Season 2 would have many more tone shifts.. After the Leland/Bob story concluded there was a mostly bad tone shift. And again, at the end of season 2, Lynch cranked up the uncompromising weirdness way beyond what we'd seen previously (IMO, a good thing). Then FWWM came along, and again a major tone shift and some negative reaction from fans who felt it was too big a departure from the tone of the show. And now we have a new season picking up 25 years later. A tone shift was almost inevitable, but much more so considering it's Twin Peaks which has always had shifts in tone. Eventually those tone shifts have been considered part of the Twin Peaks tone, but not before some initial reactions that it felt out of place.
  9. Was there any narrative significance to the opening scene with the sailor? Or was it purely some kind of metaphor?
  10. Blue Rose is a specific type of classified FBI case that hasn't been totally explained yet. I don't think it has to do with the victims. Sam Stanley was investigating the murder of Teresa Banks but he didn't have clearance to know about the Blue Rose. He also thought Chet Desmond was going back to the Fat Trout trailer park for the Blue Rose. Chet Desmond found The Ring and disappeared. Perhaps Blue Rose and The Ring are connected.
  11. I'm curious how many fans are watching the new series only having watched the old series but not FWWM? I wonder if that's part of the problem with some of the vitriolic reaction of a portion of the fan base (seems bigger here than elsewhere). IMO so far FWWM has factored more heavily into the new series than almost the entire original series has. Certainly if you take out the final episode of season 2 that's the case. The evolution of The Arm, the ring, Philip Jeffries, Blue Rose... all these things come directly from FWWM. It's without question essential viewing to at least begin to understand what's happening in the new series.
  12. I haven't started season 2 yet but was planning on it. I definitely enjoyed season 1. I'm a little more leery of jumping into season 2 if it's going to end on a cliffhanger or there's really no closure. Just how frustrating is it for people who have seen season 2 that it's cancelled? Should I save myself that frustration?
  13. It may snow a lot in New York in real life, but this isn't real life. It's a constructed work of fiction, and every time they make a choice to include a shot of snow, they are doing it for a reason. In this case we had an earlier scene in a snow storm where two characters ended up in the same bed. At the end they included two shots which took us right back to that scene. IMO it's not ambiguous. This show does like to make some unconventional artistic choices (a b&w episode, taking out sound when we follow a deaf character, holding on an extended shot of Dev in a cab for an uncomfortably long time), but if they were trying to play a game with those shots it wouldn't have much of a reason or payoff. It's a pretty clear flashback to me.
  14. It was snowing in the last scene. That should indicate it's a flashback to the earlier scene. Granted, it could be a flash forward to some future snow storm, but unless the object is to mislead us, the only reason to include the shot of the snowy windows is to place the scene during the earlier snow storm. If they just wanted to trick us into believing it was a flashback only to reveal later it was a flashforward, adding the shot of the snowy windows seems like overkill.
  15. It's interesting to see the disparate reactions across the net. First time checking the reactions on this forum and it's almost 90% vitriol. Fans seem to be having the most negative reaction. I'm a huge Lynch fan so I suppose it's not surprising that I'm loving most of it. Episode 4 was my least favorite so far... I'm not finding a lot of the repetitive humor all that funny and it was by far the most conventional. And maybe I've just watched too much Twin Peaks and Lynch, but I'm not finding the story incoherent at all. Basically, we start with the Good Coop trapped in the lodge. 25 years ago he got trapped and his evil doppelganger got out, disappeared and has been leading a secretive life of crime. It's time for the Good Coop to leave and the doppelganger to return. Someone, perhaps the doppelganger himself, wanted to avert this and created a second doppelganger to trick the Lodge denizens into taking the wrong doppelganger. It worked, but the Good Coop was sent on a journey through nonexistence and ended up taking the place of the second doppelganger, only he has no memory of who he is now. Meanwhile there are sprinklings of other mysteries throughout... the creature in the glass box, a double murder in South Dakota which may be a spirit possession similar to Bob/Leland, the mysterious billionaire who may also be the terrible person the Winkie's diner guy in Vegas was talking about, Hawk trying to decode the Log Lady's clue, the clues left by the giant (or is it the giant????), etc. Oh and the little dancing man from another place evolved into an electric tree with a meat blob head. Simple stuff guys., you following all this?
  16. I think the romance payed off well with this episode. I'm totally invested in this dilemma, great setup for the finale.
  17. I can understand that, but I think it'd be hard to justify spending a lot more time developing a romance in a show like this. I think Genndy knows his audience expects action in every episode, and I can't blame him for mixing in the romantic development with full doses of action and humor. I thought they pulled off that mix reasonably well, and I'm not sure they would have been able to pull off a longer more developed storyline focusing on romance as much.
  18. I'm glad to see Genndy ditch the asexual Asian male archetype. This season has been all about taking the archetypal character from the first four seasons and putting him through the trials of the human experience... all places we never saw him go before... suffering, guilt, despair, lust, love, etc. A good chuck of fans are raging over the introduction of a romance. The first time this season we see him he's using a gun which screams "JACK HAS CHANGED" and largely the fan base didn't bat an eye at that, but romance? Crossing a line. But they better get used to it. It's important that for the first time since we've been introduced to him, Jack has found something that will be almost as important to him as his quest.
  19. The internet seems sadly lacking when it comes to good Samurai Jack fan discussion. This thread is dead and the reddit sub is basically dominated by attention whore shit posts. The new season is great... the writing is keeping me on my toes when the action isn't, which has itself been pretty consistently awesome.
  20. I'd say the episode kept me entertained and the epilogue was effective (even if it wasn't the end), but man the story really doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. Actually opening the show with this visualization of a lie/delusion felt a bit cheap, but I could give it a pass. But then Mycroft doesn't use his advanced security clearance to figure out which planes are off course or not responding (this of course would have revealed too soon that there is no plane or little girl, but it's nevertheless something that would have been discovered even without a high ranking government official on the case). Eurus' abilities border on supernatural. Granted Sherlock's own power of deduction always bordered on being psychic dating back to the source material but his deductions have always had been given with relatively plausible explanations. But here Euros can take over a top secret high security prison simply through the power of verbal persuasion? Then there's three main characters escaping a bomb completely unscathed. And how exactly did Mycroft manage to get Eurus locked away as a child without his parents knowing about it? He was a high ranking government official in his teens I guess? I could go on... I wouldn't be broken up if this is how the series ended. It's provided it's fair share of great entertainment and I don't know how much I need any Sherlock/Watson story to be wrapped up (it seems appropriate for them to have continuing adventures indefinitely). But it would be nice for the show to end on a higher note if it wasn't going to end. They tried to ramp up the stakes as high as they can with this one and if any of it worked it it was pretty much carried by the charisma and chemistry of it's stars. But there's no reason to put a finite ending on the thing. I mean, if five years is how long it takes for them to get everyone together again, people will still watch it, so there would still be reason to make it.
  21. I made this point in the Rogue One thread comparing the two films, but I think J.J. Abrams pretty much had the same role with the new Star Wars trilogy that he had with Lost, and The Force Awakens served the same function as the pilot of that show. Introduce the characters and set them up, then turn it over to someone else to take the characters on their journey. This for me makes it a somewhat uninteresting rewatch, something that could change as the new films come out. It will be interesting to see how much of the story that Rian Johnson and Colin Trevorrow are finishing has been mapped out and if there were any clues dropped in TFA. I'd imagine some things like Snoke's identity and Rey's parentage are at least roughly mapped out, but it sounds like the bulk of the rest of the story is Rian Johnson's work.
  22. I do too, though admittedly I've only seen each once. I enjoyed The Force Awakens upon watching it the first time, but liked it a bit less as I thought about it. I started a rewatch and didn't make it very far (not that I disliked it, but I wasn't very involved on the rewatch and thought I'd pick it up later, and I never did). Rogue One I like more and more upon thinking about it, and I'm looking forward to watching it again whenever that happens. When this new plan after the Disney acquisition was announced, I would have figured The Force Awakens would be the one that adds a lot to the Star Wars mythos and Rogue One would be the corporate fan fiction cash grab. Yet after seeing them both, it's a lot closer to the other way around. Rogue One has really changed and enhanced the context around the first Star Wars. It's hard to read that opening crawl the same way after seeing Rogue One. And it's not easily dismissed This may not be fair to The Force Awakens, which, ultimately, was a set up for Episodes VIII and IX. In some ways I think J.J. Abrams basically served the same function with the new Star Wars trilogy that he served on Lost. Introduce the characters and set them up, then turn over the keys. But that does leave it feeling somewhat incomplete, and for the moment, hollow, which I don't feel at all about Rogue One.
  23. There are going to be some people who will be okay with or have a problem with any solution, but I'm pretty sure just by nature of how people react to things, the least controversial solution with be the one that calls the least attention to itself. That's why recasting is not an option. As for CGI, I'd say it depends on how extensive the CGI recreation is. Is it just one scene where she just waves and smiles or something such? Or is it an actual speaking role, ala Grand Moff Tarkin, which would require another actress to provide the voice (convincingly imitating Carrie Fisher's older raspy voice while still giving a solid performance). A lot of people wouldn't even notice if they simply changed the story to fit the footage they've shot.
  24. This is a different situation though. Paul Walker died during production of that film. Carrie Fisher died between production of films. The Episode IX have a lot more time and flexibility in finding a solution. We're talking about a film that's three years off from being released. I haven't seen Furious 7 but if the CGI creations in Rogue One are any indication, I don't think the tech is a viable solution just yet (granted it could be in two years). Still they have the option to re-write Episode IX and they will use it if they need to.
  25. It may not be Kathleen Kennedy's decision. My understanding is she's largely responsible for hiring the creative team. Rian Johnson wrote the treatment for episode 9, and Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow wrote the script. Whatever was originally in store for Leia in Episode IX, it was probably their decision more than Kennedy's. I suspect that they'd have to make the initial decision with Kennedy having veto power, (for example she'd veto it if they wanted to recast the role... and I'm sure she actually would do just that if the idea was proposed, which it probably wouldn't be). A recast or CGI Leia would be very controversial for sure, but would changing the story be? To me it's pretty much the only viable solution. I know people are going to want a happy ending for Leia or more satisfying closure for the character but at what cost? The filmmakers have to play the cards they have been dealt, and unfortunately there isn't one with Carrie Fisher being able to play the role in Episode 9. Does Leia need to die? Maybe not, they could use any footage they shot of Leia in episode 7 or 8 and re-purpose it, even perhaps digitally changing her surroundings, just to give the character a quick postscript. But they will almost certainly have to change the story if Leia was meant to have a significant role in it. I think a brief CGI Leia appearance may be on the table. Recasting isn't. I mean it's fine to banter about it on forums but I'd eat my shoe if they actually did that. Maybe Leia didn't factor that much in episode 9 at all in the first place. But if she did, she won't now.
×
×
  • Create New...