Ottis

The way the show has depicted Adelita's planning has been sloppy. So now it turns out that Adelita *did* own some of the border workers, and held Galindo so she could approach him with his plan. That actually makes sense, but aside from a strange close up of the female border guard's name tag (Hernandez?) two episodes ago, it was unclear why Galindo was being kept, why his powerful lawyers weren't getting him out and why we had to sit through watching him in a holding cell, experiencing pee spray and taking out a fellow prisoner. The pieces were there. The way they were shown was incomplete and lazy. That said, Adelita, if you want to strike a deal with Galindo, I'm not sure having him cool his heels in a holding cell for that long was a good idea. Why piss him off before offering a mutually beneficial path? I suppose the deal is why you didn't blow up his men at the warehouse. Given how poorly the show has shown Adelita's plans, I'm going to assume that her "deal' is also some sort of long con. Because I cannot believe that the anger she has from seeing her family killed will allow her to let that go in the interest of cooperation. Didn't SOA have its own Weird Fed Genius at some point, forcing Jax to do certain things? I vaguely recall that. Is this a recycled plot, with Mr. English? Where is EJO going, loaded for bear?

You're not alone. The contrived childless couple was something that might have happened 5 years ago, but not now. That "miscommunication" was silly. All it would have taken was a single question about their "kids" for it to be clear they meant dogs, and also, there is no way that the childless couple would willingly invite another couple with small kids to their home. I cannot fathom why Dylan is back, unless he is the one who dies. Manny's annoying girlfriend felt like it came right from another show. You're the Worst, maybe? This show is just paddling in circles.

I agree. They mean it. And I have heard remarks like this IRL, from religious people, many times during my life (including from my own family, one member of which converted to a specific religion). So the fact that a character on this show did the same thing didn't strike me as odd. She didn't say anything that I haven't heard before, and the reaction of the family was the same as mine ... they know her, heard it and didn't think twice about it. That's why I'm interested in the reaction to her.

Absolutely agree with you on Mark and where he is at. I was commenting more on how the show presents Mark, and how other characters around Mark, perceive Mark. The piece that was missing was any sort of dialogue around how Mark might interact with his chosen seatmate. Because as others, and I, have noted, other boys might not understand. The family instead went right to supporting Mark, and Dan went to making a pro/con list. That felt a lot like the show was telling us to accept that Mark is gay, nothing to see here, let's move on. That seemed rushed from earlier this year, IMO. I hope they spend more time on it, and not in a cliched way.

What was really odd was, if I remember correctly, in the Roseanne episodes earlier this year, the family viewed Mark as a question mark. While he clearly was different than some boys his age, they didn't know if that meant he was gay, or in a phase, or what. And they all tacitly agreed to give Mark room until Mark decided to share more. Then in The Connors, Mark is treated as matter-of-factly gay, and while Dan still is struggling with his own issues, everyone, including Dan, is supporting of Mark and his seatmate crushes. They skipped over a lot. What I remember most about the original Roseanne episodes was that they arrived after The Cosby Show had been a hit - and seemed so much more realistic than Cosby. I watched both, for a while, anyway. Cosby was never wrong, and the kids turned to perfect parents for answers, and I suppose that appealed to some. In my house, where my mom had divorced twice by then, Roseanne was much more of what we were used to (though not as Midwesterm hick). I liked Roseanne for that. I'm really becoming interested in the reaction to this character and her religion. When I watched the show, I thought she came across as capable and nonsensical and also religious. But nothing struck me as wrong, not even for hell comment (which I thought was played off as in-family humor). But others seem bothered by it. Also, she is the only religious character as far as we know. Others could be religious, and we haven't seen that, yet (or met them on The Connors).

Unless you count universal concepts like, "Family is important," as messages (I don't, sitcoms have always had at their base a few broad concepts), then you can pretty much go down the ratings list of top sitcoms and take your pick of mindless comedies: Big Bang Theory, Young Sheldon, Modern Family, Last Man Standing (OK, they shade to conservative perspectives, I hear), The Goldbergs, etc. None of them are even within throwing distance of an All in the Family. The Connors could be, if they don't become too partisan. Heh. Ours, too. In fact, that drawer solves a lot of issues, Jackie!

Unless I am reading your answer incorrectly, you remember a very different All in the Family than I do. All in the Family featured nonstop social issues, many of which were endemic to the characters. The show's willingness to address them so bluntly was what made it so ground breaking. And that's what I hope The Connors do. If The Connors is just a lightweight comedy, then I'll pass. There are enough of those already. The Connors needs to be careful, though. Unlike All in the Family, which I remember as showing different perspectives of a social issue, and each "side" made points and in the end Archie usually looked silly for resisting change, The Connors has shown a tendency to pick a side and then hit the viewer over the head with it. All the crap about Dan going with a cheaper, nonunion bid, for example, which was automatically equated with hiring illegal labor which in reality it may simply have been Americans who were cheaper because they were nonunion. And now last night, it seemed like Mark being gay is something everyone in the family knows and accepts vs. any kind of dialogue. It didn't seem that way earlier this year. And even if they do, just because he knows he is gay doesn't mean his two buddies who he is choosing between would have any idea what is going on. An adult might have talked to him about that. I get the feeling the show is so eager to make a point about how normal it is for a child to decide he is gay that it skips over any discussion. That's a mistake. And I say that as a long-time supporter of LBGTQ rights and gay causes. P.S. I never watched Archie Bunker's Place, so can't add anything there.

That scene had a real "All in the Family" feel to it. Raw, and real. And I think that's the best thing this show has going for it. The episodes earlier this year touched that very briefly. I think The Connors can do more. Nobody has the nerve to do something as groundbreaking and daring as All in the Family anymore. This show might. I didn't miss Rosanne. Her line delivery in the revival was often awkward and weirdly paced. Everyone else is more of an actor, with Goodman and Darlene being the best, IMO> Jackie was still a tad too much toward Barney Fife at time for me, though she was more restrained than before and that was welcome. I don't know why DJ's wife isn't running that family. She's clearly capable. When she returns from her tour, watch out.

I don't understand the question. As Clanstarling posted, I think all of those traits can help you be a better con artist. The key is in how you choose to use those skills. Jimmy seems unable to fly the straight and narrow without finding diversions and then outright scams. He's addicted to it. When I was in high school, there were two of us on the football team who were in the National Honor Society, me and this OL named Greg. Greg got in trouble outside of school, and yet did well enough in school to be in NHS. I was a nerd and didn't get into trouble (the bigger miracle was that i was on the football team). So the two of us used to say that Greg used his powers for evil, while I used mine for good. That's Jimmy. (BTW, I was later kicked out of NHS when I struggled with a foreign language class and got a C, so screw you, NHS!).

I thought Chuck was right almost from the beginning. There was a little bit of slight-of-hand at first, showing us a sympathetic Jimmy and overbearing Chuck, but it's sheer presence made me suspicious. Then the more we saw Jimmy repeatedly fail due to his own urges, the more clear it became that Chuck was right. And now with this episode, we see proof that Chuck actually was proud of Jimmy at one point, and supportive of him. And Jimmy has been the guy who blames Chuck (or anyone else, really) when things don't go exactly the way he wants. Jimmy was a millennial before we knew what millennials were. I don't think we see enough of Jimmy during those seven years to draw this conclusion. One thing we do see is him running an award show betting pool. Baby steps. I think that's because Jimmy *is* ass clown. No matter how hard he has tried, at various times, to be something else. He's smart, clever may be a better term, good with people, and ... he needs the thrill and achievement of a successful con or he isn't happy.

I was bummed when she showed up this episode. I had hoped she was gone for good. Now it feels like backtracking. If the ONLY reason Cade exists to to enable Ruth to off him in a creative, Ruthian way, then OK. Let's get to it. Otherwise, he will drag down this show because, IMO, Ruth is the engine (along with darkly skilled Wendy) that drives everything.

SNL has passed from bias to hypocrisy. I was excited when the South of Mason skit started off with the ridiculous PC question about why the father is a man. SNL is going to have fun with PC? Awesome! But no. Then we get Thirsty Cops. In a non PC world it would have been a few light laughs. But sadly, it’s not. Switch the genders of the cops and the driver and this site and social media would be in full on outrage. And that wasn’t the point of the skit, so today’s world forced me to ask... it’s OK if it’s a man, SNL? And then we see the camping skit based on inside Hollywood life. Pass. So SNL misses an opportunity to be original and say something new, does something with a man it would never do with a woman and then goes inside for a tedious 3 minutes. Just embarrassing. I did like the Cosby skit. And playing with the N word during WU.

I'm finding I have less patience for the scenes involving the kids. Watching them adjust in season one was surprisingly OK. Seeing the daughter try to run away, and the way the pressure was playing out in the son's actions (getting a gun), felt integral to the story's progress. Stealing money from the cartel stash at this point is a step backward. If the kids don't recognize by now how important every dollar is to the cartel, and what will happen if they don't get paid, that makes no sense, even for kids. Those two are smarter than that. Now they have helped make their dad (and mom) more vulnerable. A smarter move, and one that would have fit nicely into their adaptability, would have been for one or both kids to ask their dad for a reward or payment, to reflect THEIR risk and contributions to this enterprise. Then dad and mom could have been both somewhat proud and somewhat sad at what this is teaching their kids. I know cartels are powerful, but it seems like blowing people away all the time, in a variety of settings, would create a problem for them at some point. There are smarter moves.

Weird. I responded to this last night on my phone and saw it there, and yet today the response is gone when browsing on my laptop. So I will try again. I actually thought the rebel's plan was half assed. You've got the baby, and Galindo where you want him, AND a trap set up for Galindo's men. So why don't you blow up the car (with real baby or fake baby, it's TV) when Galindo is there, and blow up the warehouse when his men are there? Instead, you set up a drug dealer and powerful cartel figure for smuggling drugs? How long do you think that will stick? And now the baby is who knows where. At least plant one of your people to nab him, so you have Galindo's money AND the baby while he is in jail for a day or two. Plus you could have knocked off some of his most trusted men. But no. Their plotting felt a lot like MC plotting.

Genius. So well said, thank you. I felt every one of those moments for Ruth, and it's why I love when she is on the screen. I've never seen that actress before, but damn, she is good at her job. Every single time she begins with the lemonade conversation, I start laughing. She's always a second away from killing someone. Here's my contribution: I love Jason Bateman, and when I heard he was in Ozark I looked it up. But the description of the show didn't interest me. It looked and felt like Longmire or some show set in the boonies, combined with a family drama. YMMV, but for me, there was little appeal. I only decided to watch the first episode when a friend mentioned it, and I was on a work trip and had time. Once I saw one episode, I binged the first season in a week. Now I'm ready to start season 2. Meanwhile Iron Fist and Sneaky Pete and even the new Man in the High Castle have dropped behind Ozark in my priorities.

THIS may have been my favorite episode so far. So many funny lines... “hey, no hit man parked out front!” Wendy turning around the funeral home situation and now owning the business. Ruth and her smarts, and her emotion (I think she is still playing Marty, BTW). And the drama was well done, without being over the top. The only thing I didn’t like was Del promptly sending the 50 million to laundry. You’ve got a guy who is successfully laundering your money in almost impossible circumstances. Why not let him keep building the operation, and work up to the big numbers? What good does forcing him to fail and then killing him do? Del is a hot head and I think it costs him, eventually.

That's a really good point. I know from personal experience that nothing is as devastating as having someone tell you that you're not good at the thing you think you are great at. The board in effect "told" Jimmy that about his con by not buying it. And Jimmy is gobsmacked.

I once worked for a man who I liked immensely, but who had created a sort of persona for every day business dealings. He had risen from a tough neighborhood to head up an entire company, and part of the way he did it was to compartmentalize his "real self" and use this business persona in his career. The persona was extremely likable ... but a small number of people would sense it, and would tell me they didn't like him because he "is too fake" or "seems too slick." It was the most interesting thing, that people could sense it but not figure out what it was. That's what I felt happened with Jimmy and the board. And it probably would have happened whether or not he mentioned Chuck, though clearly that was part of it. On Werner ... I think he matters because he will play a role in Mike's transition to the dark side. Mike is sort of there now, but has a set of ethics. I suspect he may have to do something because of Werner that violates those ethics, but Werner's action(s) will leave Mike no choice (either because of Mike's code, or because Gus doesn't allow one).

And this may have been my *least* favorite episode (as a late comer to this show). First, why the hell is Marty a wealth advisor? Clearly his skill is in forensic accounting. Unless their company already did work for other illegal enterprises, it doesn't make any sense for Marty to be pushing investments vs. working for a law enforcement agency. Second, having Marty (and Wendy) *choose* to go illegal makes the show much less interesting to me. If you decide, after extensive exposure to someone who you know is a cartel drug smuggler/lord, to accept his offer of employment - after getting away with turning him down not once, but TWICE and still living - then you deserve whatever comes next. I get that Marty and Wendy were distraught and struggling with money, and so who knows, maybe I would make that decision? Hope I never find out. But for purposes of a TV show, then I no longer am rooting for you like I was before this episode. You made your bed. And that's a huge negative impact on my investment in the show. Third, OK, I get Del is a ruthless drug smuggler/lord whatever. But you have just hired a guy who you really wanted, and who had been reluctant to sign on, and the first thing you do is murder someone in front of him? A lighter touch would have made more sense at that moment. Draw Marty in closer and closer, until he can't escape if he wanted to. You could argue that, by seeing a brutal murder first hand, Marty is already now trapped. But what if he reacted emotionally, and ran and called the cops? He doesn't know much about Del, and all he has said is "yes, I'll work for you." There would be some danger but at this stage, because cartel, but Marty isn't part of the operation, yet. That was a poor choice on Del's part, IMO, and may be a future weakness to exploit. Finally, I give no f*cks about the FBI agent's addict mother. I have to assume that something he learns as a result of his mother's issue will pop up in his ongoing undercover investigation of Marty, otherwise, what's the point? But I really don't care about the mother, and every time we go to them it feels like a different show. If this is about his motivation to shut down drugs, do we need to know that an FBI agent wants to stop crime? That's the assumption. The only part I did like was seeing what low regard Del had, from the beginning, of Marty's partner. That was always going to end badly. Wendy strikes me as an unstable and often weak character. Having an affair, leaving kids alone while she goes to bed, poor me. Jason Bateman is still playing Michael Bluth, trying to keep his family together while members of his family run away, fall apart, yell at him, etc. Also, Alias did the sudden car crash better.

Birmingham... come on. That guy is straight? Is it only me who wondered and then... the wave? Also, I’m convinced those poofy winter coats are the fashion industry’s giant joke on consumers. Just 4 years ago they were considered dorky. Now they are everywhere. Liked the second house a lot. Especially for two people. Never been to Birmingham. Houses were more expensive than I expected.

I don’t think I’ve ever said this... I didn’t laugh in this episode until The Price is Right theme played. The skit wasn’t especially funny, but the concept of game show theme songs was. Aside from that, what most struck me was how bitter the tone of this show was. I miss the SNL that would stake out a POV based on a thoughtful position vs. emotion. Egyptian hair dressers? Blech. Oh look, Ted Cruz... another political skit with no substance, just an emotional dislike of a candidate. And I voted for Hilary and detest Cruz but come on, mindless bumbling? I love hip hop and like a lot of rap, but even I am really missing actual bands on SNL. Now more bitterness in WU with nary a word about any other POV. I’m amazed at how it is impossible for anyone to be seen as more than one thing. Like you can be privileged and white and also be concerned that being accused of something 35 years ago with no evidence might ruin your life. Both are possible. Eric makes me laugh, anyway. And it might have been interesting to touch on why Seattle specifically has these issue with hyperdermic needles, vs. making a joke about 7-11. Pete on Kanye was very funny. Though his comment about not wanting to hear Joey Chestnut on subjects aside from hot dog eating raises an interesting point about Alyssa Milano. This is what I mean by emotional with no perspective. Watched a minute or so of the magician sketch and then fast forwarded. No boyfriend. Whatever. This is like the Cleopatra hair skit. Pumpkins... heh. At this point, I skipped the rest of it and deleted the episode.

Hookers typically set a timer, not so much because that’s what you pay for but so that you move along and get it done so they can move on to another client. I learned this visiting some places outside Vegas many years ago as a tourist hanging out in the attached bars. Made the mistake of saying, during an ambush, when the place suddenly lined up the house women and I couldn’t figure out how to get out of it, “What if I don’t see anyone I like?” Piece of advice: Don’t ever do that. Mexico is a confusing place.

I don't know about underutilized. He was the center of that entire franchise, the straight man who also represented the viewer as we heard and watched, incredulous, the comments and actions of his family. At least for a while. When he started acting a bit silly it got away from that. His character here is really just a step away from Michael Bluth. He is unflappable, and his reactions are sometimes almost comedic. You can practically see him rolling his eyes at the behavior of some of the more stereotypical characters on Ozark. What's different is his ability to think on his feet and drive toward a solution. Granted, the solution may get derailed, but he adjusts - to a far greater degree than you would assume for a middle-aged father of two who is a financial advisor. It's intriguing.

I agree this is stereotype, but also, it's a stereotype because it is often true. I think if both kids were shown as sweet and likeable, then their logical reaction to their parents apparently losing their minds, and then finding out about laundering for the cartel, would be stark, raving fear. I was hoping the show wouldn't do that, because I didn't want to see kids in constant distress. And so far it hasn't, though to get there it has made the girl bratty partially as a front to cope with what has happened to them. Also, the daughter seems quite a bit older than her stated age of 15 to me. I don't know how old the actress is, but she could easily pass for 19 in looks and poise.

I’d buy that except people had enough time to comment about whether Raj should feel pitifully lonely at 35, so... I think these threads are a reflection of real life. People support their own view and people hand wave other views if they don’t bother them. There is no consistent perspective on something being right or wrong because it depends on how one feels about it anymore and not data, facts, evidence or perspective. Which is a loss. I digress... I hope you are right, that Denise becomes a partner (or buys the business from Stuart?) and not that the boss marries the emoloyee.