Lurky McLurkerson
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Lurky McLurkerson
-
-
On 10/30/2018 at 3:28 PM, StatMom said:
Right! And do law schools confer bachelors degrees of any kind? Not that I know of. This thing is even jankier than I imagined. See also: "School of Law, New York." I know it was the 90's, but couldn't anyone have Yahoo'ed/Webcrawled/Infoseeked what an actual law degree looks like? Apparently not.
If all you got from law school (in the US) is a B.A., you should sue for your tuition money back. US law schools should confer a juris doctor (JD) and should only be a 3-year program unless you're doing part-time or a joint masters/JD program. Law school is also waaaaaaayyyyyy more expensive than undergrad.
-
2
-
-
It's been a while since I've seen Huell, but I don't recall him being a man of many words. (Kuby did most of the talking for him on BB.) I actually though having the two of them lift their masks at the end was contrived.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, PeterPirate said:
I've seen posts for previous episodes containing speculation that Kim had a less-than-seemly past before moving the New Mexico. I've always ignored them but now they begin to make sense to me. There may be something about Kim that causes Jimmy to see her as a kindred spirit.
Either that or I am just way over-thinking this.
This is actually exactly what I was thinking about last night - I think that Kim has just outgrown Jimmy in the same way you can outgrow your high school friends when you grow apart and have nothing in common other than reliving the "good old days". And Kim and Jimmy's good old days stunts could irreparably harm her future. As someone who did some fairly stupid things in my youth, I get how Jimmy would have appealed to Kim's wilder side at one time and she's reaching a point where her affection for him is at odds with her pragmatism about what she wants out of life.
4 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:Also, is Mesa Verde going to be okay with associates and paralegals doing the bulk of the work, instead of Kim? I thought that was why they wanted her. I didn't follow last season, perhaps, I misunderstood. But, a large firm is going to expect LOTS of billable hours.
Mesa Verde should be fine with it. Their portfolio is expanded and requires more resources. Having associates and paralegals brings their rates down (since this is the days before flat-fee arrangements for transaction work were all the rage) and provides a better stable for client service and responsiveness. This is generally the model in BigLaw - the partner is the relationship manager, and the associates/paralegals do work under their supervision.
13 hours ago, Penman61 said:Feeling grumpy, not sure if it's the show, so scroll by if you want your mellow unharshed:
- I found Gus's monologue to Hector uncharacteristically writerly in the worst ways that Vince & Co usually excel at avoiding. You see, Hector, this story, which totally happened, is a metaphor, an analog, and it explains my character because no one watching has any idea how supremely, how patiently and terribly vengeful I am. And, in the bargain, this ironically foreshadows what will happen to both of us. Beautifully lit, though.
3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:Regarding the lucuma tree story, I am thinking more and more that Gus made it up entirely and it was simply a parable about Gus, Max and Hector. Max was the scrawny, fruitless tree, that Gus rescued from the slums of Santiago. He educated and nurtured him and made him fruitful, and got personal enjoyment (it has been speculated they were lovers) and profit through his meth making skills, just like he enjoyed eating the fruit of the tree and later sold the fruit to make money. Hector is the coati that ruined all that by killing Max. Gus is going to keep Hector alive and make him suffer, just like the coati in the story. I mean, obviously Gus is drawing the parallel, but I suspect the story isn't real.
I am prepared to go sit on the grumpy couch with Penman61 - the scene with Hector and Gus was beautifully shot (and I'd listen to Giancarlo Esposito read the phone book) - but we've seen Gus's patience and we know his burning hatred of Hector. I'm also not convinced that boorish Hector would be bright enough to grasp the metaphor even fully if he were fully cognizant. It felt superfluous and, as was mentioned in last week's recap, service to moving back to Breaking Bad rather than forward with Better Call Saul. I prefer Bryce Lynch's interpretation as a parable - that would make more sense to me; however, I just think that's parable before swine where Hector is concerned. Hector is not a man for pretty words and would enjoy the pain that Max's death caused Gus.
I love Gus Fring. He is one of my favorite TV villains of all time, but, for the love of all that is blue and 99% pure, get on with it writers! Move. the. story. forward. I love a wink at the BB fandom just as much as any, but it's got to be subtle and not a hinge-point of the plot.
-
2
-
7 hours ago, DietCokeJunkie said:
Although we don't know that she's not going to do something later, I was impressed by Ruiz's restraint when the babykiller told her that she was the one who tried to drown Ruiz in the toilet. I can't believe Ruiz didn't jump on her and start beating her. Maybe spending time with the Bible study group did help her.
And are there any consequences for Hoefler? I mean, that's attempted murder, and she said it to a full prayer circle - surely someone notified the administration of her confession, right??!?
-
5
-
-
On 7/28/2018 at 10:17 AM, shantown said:
I’m so over Madison. I’d rather see more of Barb and Carol if we’ve gotta have inmate villains. The accent, the acting, the “bad” persona - it’s all so grating.
9 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:Badison is terrible, I think im to the point where I would almost rather have the meth heads back than more of her.
Sweet Jesus, yes! When I'd rather have Angie back than you, that's a sad commentary, Madison. (I sort of liked Leanne a little, particularly after her backstory episode.) I think she's one of the most cartoonish, useless characters that they've ever introduced on the show, and that "Boston" "accent" was inexcusable. If the actress can't do it, either get one who can or go with something else. Her backstory was not interesting or enlightening, and I'm not sure what the takeaway was supposed to be - that some people are just assholes from the get-go?
-
7
-
-
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Elisabeth Moss's recurring role on The West Wing, where she played the president's youngest daughter. Honestly, I'm not much of a Moss fan - I have loved the characters that she's played in TWW, Mad Men, and Handmaid's Tale, but I always feel like the material makes her shine instead of the other way around. Samira Wiley, on the other hand, I could watch all day. Ann Dowd, too, though most of my exposure to her is from her parade of L&O guest appearances.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:
If Chuck was unable to walk and the firm had to install a chair lift for him would it be because he was a control freak or because that was the only way he could go to HHM and work? Chuck believed the lights caused him intense pain and so the only way he could attend meetings was to have the lights turned off. I don't think that was Chuck controlling things, but rather the firm accommodating his disability.
As for people telling Chuck his illness was psychosomatic? When has that ever worked? If your hand is burning with pain, whether from setting it on the hot grill or from setting it on a battery, someone telling you it's all in your head probably wont change anything.
HHM would not have to turn off their lights, cell phones, etc. to accommodate Chuck's disability in the office. The ADA only requires reasonable accommodation that allows the employee to do their job. A business, particularly a law firm, can't function with the lights out and no one carrying their mobile communication devices. Even in the age of BCS, the vast majority of legal research had moved to online rather than books, so computers are a must for research and writing. Given how many of the mission-critical functions of the firm conflict directly with the accommodations Chuck would need, I can't see how they would be inclined nor required to provide them. When someone's accommodation impacts the ability of others to do their work -- and they believe that accommodating themselves is more important than the ordinary business function of the organization -- that's a problem. Even Chuck's home deliveries of client files made me twitchy as it's a risk to client confidentiality and putting confidential/proprietary materials into the hands of someone who may not have been mentally well enough to ensure their safekeeping.
I don't really care if Chuck's illness is psychosomatic or mental. He needs treatment to function in normal society. There is a difference between telling someone it's all in their head and telling them they need mental health treatment to return to normal functioning. I get that someone having mental heath issues might be less receptive to hearing that, if their thinking is impaired, but that's just another argument that he's not mentally competent enough to be an active attorney, much less a managing partner.
-
9
-
-
56 minutes ago, rue721 said:
I thought he had tied himself to the chair, so that he'd have to go through with it? I thought that was why he was kicking the lantern to knock it over, too (instead of just throwing it down).
If he did tie himself to the chair, the firefighters might be able to tell that and would know it was a suicide (or suicide attempt).
My working conspiracy theory is that, if Chuck was tied to the chair, it's a final attempt to sabotage Jimmy -- who would want to harm Chuck but his ne'er-do-well little brother with a prior plea for an assault against him? And the fire would leave only bits of the rope so it wouldn't be obviously it was self-tied. (Complete speculation, and I'm not even sure that I think he was tied to the chair, but I think Chuck's deteriorate to the point of martyring himself to take Jimmy down.)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:
a) I'm not sure Howard was being "selfless". His move seemed at least partly ego driven to me. He could have patched things up with Chuck, kept an eye on him to make sure he didn't harm the firm, fought the insurance premium increase, or found another carrier and HHM would have survived just fine. He also could have continued to gently encourage Chuck to retire instead of immediately taking it to Defcon 1, when Chuck balked at the suggestion, by saying, "What if it is not a suggestion?" and telling Chuck he was going to kick him out if he didn't retire.
b) Chuck WAS owed a debt (equity more accurately) by Howard and HHM. He was a partner in a large firm he had built from the ground an he was entitled to his share. The idea that he should have just let Howard push him aside and leave with nothing, is preposterous.
c) I'm not sure I see the "control freak" Chuck that others talk of. He was perfectly happy to let Howard run HHM while he dealt with his illness. When it came to Jimmy, while he obviously hated the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer (with excellent cause as we find out in BB), the only tried to keep "control" over Jimmy to the extent that he didn't want him working for HHM, or have Jimmy's practice associated wiht his. In the early episodes, he gave Jimmy advice and encouragement in his public defender work, and helped him with his wills. He only tried to get him disbarred after Jimmy sabotaged his Mesa Verde files, and Jimmy absolutely, 100% deserved to be disbarred for that.
c) Chuck seems to have been admired and respected by his colleagues and staff. Hector seems to be respected by nobody, (with the exception of his psychopath nephews), only feared.
d) Jimmy played at least an equally important role in burning down their relationship as Chuck did.
With regard to A, I'm willing to concede that selfless wasn't the best choice of words, but it's the classic King Solomon situation, right? Chuck willing to divide up the baby, ultimately killing it, and Howard dipping into his own pockets to buy Chuck out -- because Chuck refused to do the right thing and retire rather than force skyrocketing malpractice premiums onto the firm and waste an FTE on a babysitter for him. He DID encourage Chuck to retire, and he kept paying him while he was out, holed up in his home under a space blanket, he coordinated delivery of groceries and supplies when Chuck (understandably) refused to accept Jimmy's help -- and did this for quite some time rather than bust up the partnership and bankrupt the firm. Howard handled people like Chuck exactly how you have to handle people like Chuck. I say well played, Hamlindigo Blue.
With regard to B, Chuck, in retirement, could have continued to draw equity from his share as long as he remained a partner. He was owed money, not an opportunity to practice at great liability to the firm. He put his own personal ego over the good of the organization, he refused to consider that his issues were mental and curable until Jimmy planted the battery on him, and he was putting up a front on how "cured" he was at the end (improved? yes, well enough to function as a partner at a good-sized local firm? no). I work for a law firm that recently went through a transition to second generation leadership, and I've worked in legal for about 20 years. Firms where the founding partners retire (or step back into emeritus roles willingly) and continue to draw their share do better than the ones where there is a power struggle from someone who won't let the next generation start to lead. I am grateful that our founding leadership didn't Chuck things up here.
With regard to C, Chuck was incapable of running HHM while he was ill. We didn't see that part of the timeline, but what other choice did Howard have but to step into a leadership role? Chuck couldn't go outside without passing out from the perceived buzz of the electrical lines and streetlights. Howard, Jimmy, and Ernie helped him survive when he was too ill to handle his own grocery store runs, and he repaid them all with selfishness and vitriol. I can't pat Chuck too much for his support and encouragement when he was knifing every single one of them in the back. Jimmy absolutely should have been disbarred for his Mesa Verde scheme, but let's not completely ignore that Chuck played a hand in how he got there by poaching them from Kim and undermining her business development efforts. (Again, I work in legal -- partners who sabotage their associates, the next generation of their firm, as a power play or to pick up billing credit, are selfish and not the leadership you want in your firm.) Chuck's being respected and admired is running on fumes from his days as a rainmaker for the firm.
With regard to D, of course Jimmy contributed to this mess! Feeling like Chuck is a shithead doesn't mean that I think Jimmy is a saint. He's proto-Saul Goodman, for goodness sake. His questionable moral compass, his shortcuts, and his thrill at pulling one over on someone are major problems. I wouldn't want him on my malpractice insurance. But Chuck at no point demonstrated enough respect for Jimmy as a person to be straight with him about why he couldn't be a lawyer at HHM, rather fake-supported him to his face and cut off his career path behind closed doors. I have a great deal of sympathy for Chuck's frustration with Jimmy, but I have major issues with how those manifested in his behavior. Chuck was never able to see Jimmy as anything more than his screw-up little brother who should be grateful for the never-ending opportunities to bring him his papers and groceries. As is often the case with Vince Gilligan's characters, both are seriously flawed individuals.
-
6
-
-
I may have cheered out loud when Howard handled Chuck and his ceremonial send-off. Who would have though Howard was the selfless one of that pair? Chuck seems to think that everyone owed him some sort of debt - Jimmy for bailing him out so many times, Howard for the rainmaking Chuck did to build HHM - but those debts are eventually paid and Chuck had no markers to cash in any more, only his own selfish interests. Good for Howard for ousting him before he could metaphorically burn the firm down.
As I watched and then read through the comments here, I'm kind of wondering if there is a parallel being drawn between Chuck and Hector. They both have the same bullying, selfish personality, but Chuck is more devious and restrained whereas Hector is all id and bravado. Chuck lived in a prison of his mental illness, and Hector under the thumb of the cartel - but both seemed to be fighting for control of others around them by force and deception. By burning their relationships with those around them (Chuck with Howard and Jimmy; Tio Hector with Gus and Nacho), they brought about their own demises -- and this is where I would have liked to see Mike show up because where I really think Mike and Gus connect is their loyalty and cultivation of personal relationships and the long game.
I think Gus Fring is still my favorite TV villain of all times. What a fucking long game that guy plays. Strategic, able to keep his ego out of it, and making personal connections to build his network. His self-control is amazing.
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, DrSpaceman73 said:
As with Walt in Breaking Bad, in terms of when they "become" their alter ego, I think both shows point to their alter ego being a manifestation of their true personality all along. That is the parallel between Walt and Saul. The Walter White we see at the beginning of Breaking Bad is sort of a shell and the person we know he was earlier in his life from flashbacks. He adapted over time to the situation and curves life dealt him, then reached a point with his cancer where he realized he had little time to change his short future and reverted back more to his earlier persona. That is not to say he was always going to end up a meth dealer. But he was always a brilliant chemist who had control issues, always has to not only BE the smartest person in the room but also has to PROVE he is the smartest person in the room, could not work well with a partner and that ultimately caused the split with his former Grey Matter group. They never explicitly say that in Breaking Bad, but its heavily implied. We see the same thing really repeat itself with him in the meth business.
I think we are seeing the same thing with Saul/Jimmy. His true inner personality is more Saul than Jimmy. Its more a transformation back to his true nature than morphing into someone new.
And I've said from the beginning I would much rather see Saul than Jimmy and I don't necessarily need to see the whole process like we did on Breaking Bad just because they are such similar stories.
And I would say Chuck and Walt have that same flaw they just can't let go : not only BEING the smartest person and right about everything but having to prove it and show it to everyone. Its what caused Chuck to end up where we saw him at the end of this episode. He could have easily let Mesa Verde go and moved on, his life would be affected very little by it. Couldn't just let it go though
I'd never thought about that parallel, but this is a great observation. Vince Gilligan said about Walt that he was turning Mr. Chips into Scarface, and I have always felt like it was more of a revelation than a transformation. Scarface was there all along with a mask of powerlessness over him. Jimmy is basically Saul with a very thin veneer of trying to do the right thing, and less for himself but to make Chuck and Kim happy. I think the role of the women in their lives is interesting, too. Skylar was pilloried for being an overbearing shrew, but I don't get the sense that Kim is seen in the same way - she's trying to help Jimmy channel his powers for good rather than falling back into his scams (maybe she's seen as more fallible because she sometimes plays along with Jimmy?).
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Ottis said:
I don't think Jimmy *wants* to be in the same lawyer ballpark as Chuck. That doesn't mean Jimmy is a lesser lawyer between the two, nor does it mean that, despite all his success as a "traditional" lawyer, Chuck doesn't see that Jimmy has talent and doesn't like it (hence stiffling Jimmy, not only because Jimmy plays fast and loose, but also because newly minted lawyer Jimmy has some upside and grit). I suppose we won't agree.
I guess my position is that it's not that Jimmy doesn't have the talent to be a good lawyer, it's that he doesn't have the moral fiber to resist the thrill of Slippin' Jimmy to become a good lawyer. He learns just enough to work some law into his con. I think Chuck's reason for submarining Jimmy is his own selfish insecurity rather than concern for his malpractice premiums, but even Kim, who sees Jimmy's potential and loves him, is wary of what a liability Jimmy is and knows better than to get into business with him. I guess if you want to argue that con artistry matters more than ethics for a non-traditional attorney, I could see considering Jimmy a good lawyer, but all I see is a scam artist that knows just enough to get himself out of jams -- and, ultimately, Saul Goodman the Criminal Lawyer, whose cashflow is directly tied to his willingness to overlook law and ethics, is Jimmy's longed-for heyday when he's flees to slather icing in Omaha. This a guy who chafes at being expected to color inside the lines, and legal has a few fairly bright lines. YMMV, though.
I'm sure I've said it before, Jimmy is fun to watch, but I bet he's not much fun to know or love.
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, Ottis said:
This depends on what your definition of a good lawyer is. All we know is that somehow Chuck became a lawyer and partner, and Jimmy later managed to become a lawyer on his own. Somewhere in there Chuck began to actively work against Jimmy's success as a lawyer, which this episode addressed in part. It could be that Jimmy *is* a better lawyer than Chuck, due in part to his willingness to connect with people. We don't know the answer to who ultimately is a better lawyer. We only know how Chuck views it.
That's why I originally posted that I had hoped for something more and maybe surprising. Jimmy provoking Chuck to lose it was the most cliched way to go. In fact, I'm not sure I buy Chuck would do that. He had been preparing for his own remarks, and knew this was the coup de grace for his victory over Jimmy. Rebecca being present was a wild card, so there is that. But even so, if Chuck is as good a lawyer as he thinks he is, I don't believe he would have lost it that way over what we saw. That's another reason why I thought, if the situations were reversed, Jimmy would have handled it better. Of course, Chuck's mental illness around being in control of those around him may have been the trigger. Still pondering that.
I actually work in legal, and I'd say the going standard for measuring lawyers is education, prestige, and money. In lawyer-land, no one's looking at Chuck and Jimmy on their faces and picking Jimmy out as the winner. Jimmy is an excellent con man, but he's not a great lawyer. He's drawn to seek thrill, and it's why he couldn't sustain at Davis & Main and why he can't keep himself in the box. He connects with old people, but we saw him fail to connect with juries as a public defender, and he's certainly shown himself tone deaf in traditional business-client situations. Before imploding, Chuck had mastered the legal skills and the rainmaking skills to be a name partner at a decent-sized firm. Is he a nice guy? Nope. He's kind of a self-important jerk, and, after nearly two decades working with lawyers, that's not off the mark, particularly for partners well known in their fields/areas. (There has been at least one study that showed that attorneys - and litigators, in particular - have a fairly adversarial personality type that makes them more prone to divorce and interpersonal issues than others.)
This game is Chuck's to lose -- Jimmy's not in his ballpark as a lawyer.
2 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:I can understand how Chuck feels. I've known people in my life who manage to duck the bullet time and again, receiving treatment that a law-abiding person would never get. Playing by the rules doesn't always mean you'll win.
This sibling rivalry thing caught my eye very early on in Season One. Initially Chuck does a decent job making it look like he's a loving brother but Michael McKean played it well, always with an undertone of jealousy and frustration. Jimmy just has a certain charisma that Chuck will never have (maybe losing that self-righteous, moral superiority, condescending attitude would have helped).
I feel Chuck, too! I am a rule follower, and the forgiveness-over-permission people drive me crazy. The difference between me and Chuck is that I'm not willing to let my righteous indignation tank me. I keep my eye on the assholes, but I'm not sending myself down the rabbit hole in pursuit of justice. Chuck's not wrong about Jimmy, but he has become so obsessed with making sure Jimmy gets his just desserts that he's come completely unhinged (which, in turn, makes people take his criticism of Jimmy less seriously and then vicious cycle, here we come).
-
9
-
-
10 hours ago, Ottis said:
Turned out to be another "you can't handle the truth" moment, subsidized by a simple set up with the battery. I was hoping for something more clever and surprising, that would have shown Jimmy was actually Chuck's equal... or better... at law. Oh well.
Actually, I think this continues to illustrate the long-running theme that is fueling Chuck's rage against Jimmy. Jimmy's NOT Chuck's equal or better at law... yet people continue to side with/like Jimmy better than Chuck. Chuck sees himself as smarter, more morally upright, more cultured, and overall just a BETTER person than Jimmy, yet Jimmy keeps, in Chuck's eyes, "winning". People like Jimmy. People forgive Jimmy for nearly anything. People want to help Jimmy succeed, despite all his flaws and questionable character. And Chuck intercedes in these to keep Jimmy from "getting away with" his Slippin' Jimmy routines. And he's angry because he's doing everything right and no one will acknowledge his superiority over Jimmy, dammit!
For Jimmy to out-lawyer Chuck would be out of character. For Jimmy to be less than a lawyer than Chuck but still come out smelling like a rose is what pushes Chuck over the edge into. Pandering to the underdog-character-bests-the-villain-at-his-own-game trope would be way more pedestrian to me than staying true to who these characters have been for 2.5 seasons.
-
24
-
-
Wherever Sarah Gertrude Shapiro is lurking about in the bowels of the show, I hope she stays there and the new showrunner can bring S3 back into the ballpark of S1. "Sophomore slump" doesn't even begin to describe the toilet-swirl of S2, and I endorse the "read episode descriptions" suggestion, if you value your time at all. Here's to S3 coming back onto the tracks (and SGS's media ban continuing). I'm kind of excited to see that it's a suitress this time and where they take that.
-
Quote
If you're not already watching it because Bee bugged you on The Daily Show -- that was me until a few months ago -- I urge you to check it out; she's like a whole other person now that she can be extremely angry as opposed to playing a news correspondent "character."
This, so, so much. I could not stand the awkward, The Office-esque humor of Daily Show correspondent Samantha Bee on , but I loooooove Full Frontal Samantha Bee.
-
2
-
-
Season 2 is like the bad student film that thinks it's much better than it actually is. It's like the showrunners were so busy patting themselves on the back for "addressing" all these controversial issues they forgot about quality writing and coherent narrative. Quantity if story lines doesn't make up for quality, and I find that SGS just comes off as totally insufferable and more impressed with herself than anyone else is. You, madam, are no Vince Gilligan.
-
6
-
-
I thought Quinn's storyline in this episode was the one that made the most sense, and she basically explained exactly what she was thinking when she said she didn't necessarily want to be a mother but wanted a choice and that she refused to be Booth's disappointment. Pursuing alternatives was a path to identifying more of her "failings" (in her head). I don't think Quinn is any less damaged than Rachel, and her poor relationship to her father was alluded to repeatedly. She just has a very different way of dealing with it, going on the aggressive, actively thwarting contestants' attempts at happiness, and laughing at the "weakness" of others while Rachel goes catatonic.
(I would also warn the cast and crew of Everlasting that, if Rachel is every peppy or cheerful with you, you should watch your back. Happy Rachel seems to be more dangerous than the other brands of her we've seen.)
-
4
-
-
4 hours ago, NutmegsDad said:
*slow golf clap*
Bravo. Bravo, Jeremy-loving FanBoy Network Executive. You got your fanfic. The abusive asshole who blew up Rachel's life in front of everyone at the end of Season 1, and got fired after beating her up, was brought back at YOUR insistence to turn good guy at a moment's thought, save the day, expose Yael as a hidden mole and "take care" of her and Coleman.
I almost feel like this is the showrunner's middle finger at the execs who required them to keep the Jeremy character on the show, and it feels like cutting off the show's nose to spite it's face. I don't know if it's SGS or some other creative "genius" who feels their vision got shit upon by having to keep the guy they didn't want on the show, but it seems to me that it was mostly their decision on the direction in which to take the character and to flush UnReal down the toilet rather than work around the obstacle. It feels very tantrum-y -- "You want me to keep this asshole? Fine, I'll make the show a parody of itself!"
Overall, there were some bright spots in this episode -- Quinn's reaction to the the way Everlasting ended, Darius/Ruby, and (my personal favorite) Romeo's, "You got me shot, we don't talk." But I'm not sure it's enough fire extinguisher for the dumpster fire of this season.
I'm undecided on returning for next season. The first season was so good that I hold out hope for recovery from the sophomore slump, but that soap opera-y shot from the smoldering car to the ham-fisted exposition from Jeremy that he was somehow responsible? Not confidence-inspiring nor are SGS's self-aggrandizing inteviews.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, LittleIggy said:
Exactly. What kind of vetting do they do of contestants if an employed reporter can infiltrate the show?
I had the same thought when I was watching the episode, but, on further reflection, I don't think it would be a complete barrier to participation because Quinn seemed pretty confident in her reminder to Jameson about the confidentiality agreement she signed for the show. That shut Jameson up pretty quickly, and I assume the threat of a protracted, expensive lawsuit is what the showrunners think would keep even a journalist contestant in line.
-
The only parts of that episode I enjoyed at all were Ruby telling Darius to get lost and Quinn calling Rachel's mother out for what an awful excuse for a human being she is. (And she is awful -- what kind of parent tells their child that a trauma that they have suffered renders them unlovable? I assume Quinn knows about this and that's why she confronted her.)
Other than that, I'm about done with UnReal. This show has no idea what story it's trying to tell, and it doesn't seem to understand that characters are not interesting simply because they are unlikable.
-
12
-
-
17 hours ago, Fable said:
My problem this season is that I don’t like or care about any of the characters, especially the main cast, but honestly, most of the side characters either. I don’t mind unlikeable characters if they are interesting and believable, but most these characters have no depth, and the storylines are cartoonish. If a show wants to examine social issues, fine, but it needs to be earned, and I didn’t feel it was. I don’t think this episode was about exploring social issues as much as it was to give us another big shocker and to show us Rachel having another crisis of conscience. Give me a break!
Thank you, this puts into words perfectly how I feel about this season so far -- with this episode being the cherry on top of a shit sundae. I'm disappointed. I really enjoyed last season, and this one has been a shitshow of boredom, scattershot of plot points that never come together, and now this craptacular treatment of a life-and-death problem. I don't even have words for how disgusting I found this episode, and not in a hard-to-watch-but-necessary kind of way, in a way-to-parade-out-your-sophomoric-take-and-insulting-something-serious kind of way.
If Sarah Gertrude Shapiro truly does write Rachel as a surrogate for herself and is looking for sympathy and validation via people's reaction to Rachel, I feel very sorry for her. Rachel is selfish, broken, destructive, manipulative, and, yet, somehow also boring and off-putting. I tend to enjoy complex characters with a dark leaning, and Rachel should be right up my alley... but she's not. She's a Frankenstein of tropes trying to be edgy. She's not edgy, she's just pathetic and dull.
(Also, any Buffy fans in the thread? How many people thought they'd one day advocate/cheer for the return of Marti Noxon? If last season is the result of her involvement, I say bring her back.)
-
8
-
-
I initially heard "Puck" instead of "Huck" and totally thought y'all were going to suggest Puck from The Real World. Which would also be a fantastic running mate for The Donald.
-
1
-
-
It's curious that they never explain what actually happened between those three. In fact it might be unfair to label Elliot as smug seeing that it never was established concretely that ever did anything at all other than be wildly successful with the company that he co-founded with Walt and which Walt seemed to have left voluntarily. But if you read the story like an anti-novel, rebuilding the narrative within the negative space it's clear that at least Gretchen felt some responsibility towards Walt's situation which she shouldn't have felt were Walt simply irrationally jealous. Also, although not true of the innocents... the guilty in Breaking Bad all seemed to meet an end proportional to their crimes. By this measure... a few years of terror until Junior comes of age might not seem too unreasonable a penalty for let's say an affair that indirectly cost him billions. Walt doesn't need to choose them to deliver the money, but he feels as though it's poetic justice for what they did to him... a Dantesque solution that has them still looking like the upstanding citizens playing the grand community benefactors, yet at least paying a little bit for their sins.
I could have sworn that I read some comments from Vince Gilligan discussing the backstory/scene motivation that he provided to Jessica Hecht and Bryan Cranston for Gretchen and Walter's relationship, and, when I went looking for that, I found this fairly recent article where he discusses it in detail (under the heading "Here's Why Walter White Left Gray Matter". Basically, his ego and pride costs him a fortune.
-
2
-
You: The Book and the Sequels and Other Spoilers
in You
· Edited by Lurky McLurkerson
I am very late to the party and just finished the book (and anxiously awaiting the second from the library hold queue), but I completely agree with this. Show Beck is too nice and lacked the flaws of the one in the book, and one of the things I thought was most effective about the book was that Joe's homicidal tendencies came not only from trying to remove obstacles to his being with the object of his obsession but also following their inevitable fall from the pedestal he put them on. I felt the inserted Paco sidestory was unnecessarily shoehorned in when it felt like they were already rushing and simplifying the actual plot of the book - that's the beauty of doing a multi-episode TV series instead of a movie: more time to tell the story and develop more nuanced characters.
I also had no idea that the actress who played Blythe was transgender - I don't think that was supposed to be a plot point. I thought it was weird that they turned Show Blythe into almost a friend instead of a competitor/critic, but I loved Hari Nef's portrayal of Show Blythe.