Ottis

The style has become very Sopranos-like, and not only because we have two crime families at war. The UFO stuff is like Tony's dreams. The flashbacks to sons being indoctrinated into criminal acts. The rebellious younger kid. Even the pauses between actions, like when they took Otto's hat off his head and then left him alive. Not that I mind it. I loved The Sopranos. Can't a bad guy, forced to deal with the prejudices of his day, be good at something because he had to be in order to stay alive (Vietnam)? The biggest trope about Hanzee was that the huge piece of glass would still be sitting in the road at the scene of the crime. Hank, Lou, Betsy at a minimum covered that scene and never saw it?

And then ... This plot line is starting to feel like a shout out to women everywhere who think men just want to solve things rather than listen, as the direction of these two prior comments seems to indicate. And that's hugely annoying. Of course men want to fix things, including the problems of people who they care about. And there is nothing wrong with Jimmy trying to "fix" Gretchen in the only way he knows how. It's all he has left, because she only seems to communicate anything meaningful about her condition when she is reacting (negatively) to what he has done to try to help. The rest of the time she throws up a block and won't engage. It feels like one big "You can't fix me, stupid!" pity party, and somehow Jimmy is the bad guy. That seems wrong.

LOVED the Humpty Hump costume. I just wish they could have actually played the music. Rights issues, I suppose. I was the only person at my house who got it, and the Burger King reference. This I did not love. It made no sense. What exactly was Jessica going to do, hit the teens? I like Jessica, but she is best when her issues are over the top and smart (like bargain shopping). When she is just crazy, she isn't funny. Agree that her skipping over a termite inspection seems a bit out of character. Being in Fla., she should realize bugs are a big deal. Zima has always stood for wimpy, in my experience. Often associated with the University of Virginia and frat boys.

Not only that, but it was a very slow death, that required that the blacklister leave for long periods of time and then return to the victim. Because, you know, you like having a man who you are murdering on the premises for as long as possible. Oh, who are we kidding. Identifying "ridiculous" on this show is like catching fish in a bathtub. That said, I still enjoy it, especially with less Lizzy.

There were some Peacock-family-type comments made earlier by one of the Gebhardt brothers around each of the brothers sleeping with multiple women (wives/ girlfriends/ what else), and an informal system where each brother seemed to be responsible for whatever kids came from trysts with their respective women. However, there was an implied incestuousness to it, as if it were possible that a woman could be accidentally assigned to the wrong brother and as a result, so could any kids. So while I believe you are correct, that Simone is Dodd's daughter, they all seem to operate in almost a commune-like setting of carnal relationships and offspring. Plus, Simone is a Lolita-type so even all that aside, maybe she would have goaded her dad that way, anyway. All of it is icky and adds to the weirdness of the family.

I haven't made up my mind whether they are bonding or have an uneasy truce, due to Lou's wife/Hank's daughter's cancer. I think that Peggy's car is somewhere around that gas station. Didn't the building behind it say it was a "collision center" or garage or somesuch? This Season 2 of Fargo blows True Detective Season 2 out of the water.

I'm alarmed by how many people in this thread say they like Lizzie. The less Lizzy, the better. Every pairing of any other characters on this show is better. Cooper and Tom. Aram and what's-her-name Mossad agent. Dembe and Pee-wee Herman. Lizzy's little fantasy brought the episode to a screeching halt, for no clear reason. What was really ridiculous is that the house didn't back up to the sea. There was quite a lot of land back there, including a golf hole. Ressler should have had agents there as quickly as he had them on the other three sides. "The sea" wasn't an obstacle.

EXCEPT that ... there clearly is an attempt this season to address another option of life in the post-ZA - giving up. We've had Abraham bring it up, while what's-her-name in the car stares meaningfully at him. We see Michionne and what she wrote on her arm. We see the two injured Alexandrian's say just leave us behind. And we see Nicholas freak out and then kill himself. I'm sure there were more examples. So you *could* construct a meaning there that those who give up can drag down those who won't. And set up a confrontation between those two perspectives for all survivors.

I think the father stands in for the anti-drug perspective. At first he didn't seem to care how his son helped him live, but as he learned more, he did and clearly thinks his son is lying and something is wrong.

The Glenn fate partially redeemed what had been a very pedestrian episode. The zombie stuff was all been there, done that. The actual interesting stuff was the continued exploration of the *other* choice in a ZA ... giving up. Abraham asked Michionne about it an ep or two ago. Nicholas gave up this ep. The woman who fell wanted to give up (as did her injured companion) and ultimately did. Rick looked like he was thinking about the option - not to do so, but just that it existed given all they had been through. Now it looks like we are going to hear Morgan's rebuttal to giving up next week.

I liked some of the concepts, like having a "trophy" version of another friend. And I empathized with the "no more soccer" plot line, though more because competitive soccer at such young ages is overkill vs. missing football games. But I really have no use for Taco, and Andre is only funny when he, like Tobias Bluth on Arrested Development, keeps saying awkward things that he doesn't realize sound awkward.

I didn't understand the central plot point: Gretchen's extreme inability to explain to Jimmy that she was clinically depressed. She can act like an ass to strangers, insult friends, and yet she can't acknowledge to someone she cares about that she has a medical problem shared by millions of other people? I honestly thought that when Lindsay said "it has returned, hasn't it?" that Gretchen had cancer, because her "end of the world" reactions to everyone over whatever was bothering her were so extreme. And yes, I know that people who are insecure and clinically depressed might have the most difficulty telling others who really matter. I get it. And I also get that a central tenet of the show called "You're the Worst" is that the way these characters act is unconventional and seemingly shallow with the meaningful stuff buried deep, Nevertheless, given all we know about Gretchen and the way she lives her life, to revert to such an incommunicative state over a "secret" that to most people would not be a big deal was just a bridge too far for me. When she finally told Jimmy, I was trying to figure out if his look was, "That's it?" Because that's how I felt. Then again, I can count at least four key people in my life who take meds for depression, so maybe it just isn't a big deal to me. Note:I'm sure it was more along the lines of "that's why she is acting so weird, well that's not a big deal, I need to show her that, what a strange and wonderful creature."

Except if being underage was the issue, they could have used a male-female pairing. And more importantly, if I remember correctly they have the younger character state he is 18, so he clearly is of age (by the standards of the viewing audience), so what does that leave us with? I don't disagree that the punchline was trying for something more than "ew-gay men." However, even allowing for the possibility of that interpretation was in such violent contrast with what the show usually bends over backwards to do.

That's a political view, not a comment about TDS. My perspective, as an independent, supported by the fact that JS is beloved by the left and not the right, is that JS's choice of topics, and his editorial slant, was very left. I am not saying that either the right or left is better, or that was either political party does (or has done) is good or bad. That isn't my point. Have you ever read the book Animal Farm? There are some good lessons there. Can't get my head around that. Being balanced doesn't mean you can't hold politicians accountable. It means that you include more than one perspective, and give more or less equal weight to each - even if you don't agree with one. That could be in a single report, or in a series of reports over time. if you continually take the same perspective on an issue where there is debate, or you mock another perspective without considering any of its merits (merits that may exist but be different than the reporter's personal views), then you are not being balanced. That's the path JS often took in the last few years, IMO. Trevor seems to be heading back to the rich comedy grounds that is commenting not on issues, but on how the media reports those issues. That's safer. His Biden report went there.

Is there a board here to discuss sci-fi movies? Would love to join you in that. Gattaca, Capricorn One. Interstellar. Blade Runner. Lots of material to mine. In terms of Noah, I also suspect there may be a generational divide growing here. I am finding some of his humor obvious and not very funny. The bully mash ups were a good example. I enjoyed the Golem line, but the rest ... enh.

I'm beginning to wonder if Trevor allows his personal biases to affect who he chooses as targets more than JS did. The show should expose hypocrisy by anyone, on any side, not choose pet targets and go after them with weak sauce.

I think those two points are connected. Makes us root for her, just as you did, vs. be indifferent. Intentionally? No. But I would not be surprised if a series of events led to the meat being sold by someone else at the shop, who doesn't realize its source. This was a way better episode than the pilot. Some hidden menace (I was sure Ted Danson was done for at the roadblock scene), some quirkiness (the meat grinding, and the cop stops by) and not too much silliness.

That issue wasn't party or administration specific. It had gone on for multiple administrations. JS chose it as a pet cause and because Dems were the current administration they had to deal with it, but it had nothing to do with the parties or their platforms. He occasionally made a comment about Dems and the left, but far less than the right, and he often simply ignored those issues. If we all had time we could watch a year's worth of shows to compile data, but as an independent who watched TDS for many years, it was very clear to me that in his last years, JS went light on the Dems and the left. It's one reason why the left loved him and the right didn't. It was sort of self-evident. Taboo where? I hear it all the time.

So ... you're in NY? I am a state away from ND. I get the juxtaposition, for me, it is a matter of degree. Fargo the movie, and Fargo season one, benefited from a good mix of niceness vs. evil and the contrast between the setting and the actions. Fargo season 2, episode 1, felt like someone said, "People seem to like that - let's add more!" It's almost parody. No one acts like Kirsten Dunst's character after she hit a guy and drove home. To hit him, pause, and then slowly drive off was funny and interesting (especially as shot from above). To arrive home with a body she thought was dead, bleeding inside her car, and make dinner ... what? I loved the way the two cops talked about the crime scene and interspersed comments about having a family dinner together. All the "OK, thens" at the butcher shop were over the top. Stuff like that. I will say that no show conveys bitter cold and winter to me like Fargo does. Ugh.

I meant more the direction he was looking. He would focus off to the side, not looking at the other actor, and read his lines. There were a few times when he had to improvise a bit and he did fine. I just found his stare distracting. You see that with some non-comedy guest hosts. Here's the funny thing about that skit: A number of content sites, as well as reviewers, have introduced it as essentially an accurate representation of what was said at the debate. I can't decide whether that makes it brilliant or pedestrian. My gut says it was subtle on a few levels, such as pointing out how ridiculous Bernie's stance is in the real world, and how Hilary knows it, but I'm not sure a lot of people perceived it that way.

You know what I liked about that episode? The show took shots at both Dems and Republicans. For a long time, the JS version of TDS gave the Dems and the left a free pass. The show should expose hypocrisy and ridiculousness on all sides.

Almost. The quality of each episode is inversely proportional to how much Lizzy's actions drive it. The first twp eps were very good, when Lizzy was a passenger to Red's machinations. This one was a bit of a snooze, and the couple of times Lizzy took action were the worst parts of the ep (calling Ressler? Really?). I know it is a real thing, but I had a hard time getting excited about corn viruses.I need something more visceral as a TV threat.

Exactly. They used it because one of them was afraid of heights (which ... first, isn't that a cardinal sin for TAR, and second, it wasn't really a heights thing, since you basically were strapped in and couldn't move much), which was odd but OK. Now give it to a week team, and try to knock out a good one.

Perhaps. But the show is all over race relations, and women's issues, and economic inequality. I'm pretty sure there have been some more enlightened gay-themed skits, and of course when Hilary was on last week, the cast member who played her and "interviewed" the real Hilary tending bar made a point about HRC being late in supporting gay rights. That was my point ... that the closing punch line to the happy kingdom sketch was just so opposite what the show normally preaches.

This is about all the show is still about, is it not? Because we are seeing the same plot points happen. The Wolves attacking, and the walkers who are coming, are not interesting. What is interesting is what the Wolves represent, vs. what Rick now represents, vs. the Alexandrians' perspective (which Rick had at the beginning), vs. what Abraham said about having a death wish, vs. (I imagine) someone eventually choosing to kill themselves. That's all the show is about anymore, where people stand in respect to what the point of life is in a ZA.