S01.E01: Everybody's Been Burned / S01.E02: The Hunter Gets Captured By the Game

[AntiBeeSpray]

If you ever get the chance to watch, I highly recommend those early seasons of The X-Files (especially seasons 1, 2 and 3). The episode entitled "Duane Barry" is from season 2, and it's an amazing episode, really important for Mulder and Scully, and Steve Railsback plays the title character with great intensity. It's definitely unforgettable.

 

("Duane Barry" is actually part of a trilogy of episodes that form a complete story arc, which I won't give away in case you decide to watch it. Anyway, the three episodes to watch are "Duane Barry," "Ascension" and "One Breath," in that order.)

 

Word. And even later seasons too. Anything from seasons 4-7 are pretty good imo. Some of 8 and 9 are ok as well. And watch the Truth too (the finale). It's well worth it.

[sinkwriter]

I'm most fond of seasons 1 through 5 and the first film, but seasons 6 and 7 have some episodes that I like a lot (just not as many as in the first 5 seasons). Seasons 8 and 9... I barely remember.

[AntiBeeSpray]

I'm most fond of seasons 1 through 5 and the first film, but seasons 6 and 7 have some episodes that I like a lot (just not as many as in the first 5 seasons). Seasons 8 and 9... I barely remember.

 

That's kind of me too. Only it's: s3-s7 along with the first film. 8 and 9 were ok, but I don't remember a ton from them. A few words: Whiny Scully and Jerk Mulder. *yuck and ugh*

 

Hoping to watch some of Aquarius this weekend.

[sinkwriter]

 

8 and 9 were ok, but I don't remember a ton from them. A few words: Whiny Scully and Jerk Mulder. *yuck and ugh*

 

Yeah, exactly. When you aren't loving the two lead characters anymore because they're behaving so frustratingly, you're kind of ready to stop watching the show. I may not have regularly watched season 9. I think I was burnt out by that point and didn't like the direction the writers were taking Mulder and Scully as characters.

 

 

Hoping to watch some of Aquarius this weekend.

 

So the rest of the episodes are going to be available to watch now On Demand, or...? How does this work?

[turnitwayup]

So the rest of the episodes are going to be available to watch now On Demand, or...? How does this work?

I think it might be on hulu but I watched it on nbc's Aquarius full ep pg. No commercials and I'm about halfway thru. I'm liking the development of the Sam/Brian/Charmain partnerships the best of all the different storylines going on.

[shapeshifter]

...So the rest of the episodes are going to be available to watch now On Demand, or...? How does this work?

They're on Hulu now, on the NBC website now (http://www.nbc.com/aquarius/video), and will air weekly on NBC. I'm resisting watching episode 3 because I'm supposed to be packing for my upcoming move, and because there aren't a lot of posts on the #3 thread (it's more fun to watch "with" others).

If you're not a Hulu subscriber, they may still have a free one month trial.

I don't currently have access to On Demand, so others will have to speak to that.

If you do watch more episodes, here's the link to the Aquarius spoiler policy: forums.previously.tv/topic/27072-aquarius-spoiler-policy/#entry1192416

In other words, to quote our webmaster, "Don't be a dick," and to avoid dickdom, go to the main Aquarius page and select the appropriate episode thread: forums.previously.tv/forum/825-aquarius/

Edited May 30, 2015 by shapeshifter

[walnutqueen]

Yeah, exactly. When you aren't loving the two lead characters anymore because they're behaving so frustratingly, you're kind of ready to stop watching the show. I may not have regularly watched season 9. I think I was burnt out by that point and didn't like the direction the writers were taking Mulder and Scully as characters.

 

 

So the rest of the episodes are going to be available to watch now On Demand, or...? How does this work?

 

They were put On Demand (ATTUverse user, here) the night of the premiere episode, and will be available for 4 weeks.  I think you can also watch on NBC.com, but don't quote me on that.

[ABay]

It would've been better without the Manson storyline, imo.

[psychoticstate]

Helter Skelter was the first true crime book I ever read, when I was 11, and I have read everything I could find on the case since. 

 

That said, I liked this a lot.  I don't take issue with how Manson is being portrayed - - by all accounts, he could be very charming prior to 1969.  If the show portrayed him as he became it would be very difficult to explain how he managed to convince people to abandon their lives and run off to live in his Family.  So I think they did right by showing his charming cult-leader side while letting bits and pieces of his evil persona out.  I haven't seen the actor portraying Manson in anything else but I think he's fine.  Steve Railsback's performance is IMPOSSIBLE to top so it would be unfair to compare the two.  Railsback WAS Manson.

 

I wasn't an X Files watcher and had no real opinion on David Duchovny.  I think he's perfectly cast here.  It's hard watching how much latitude the police were given - - with suspects, witnesses and even how they treated women working in their department - - but it was clearly how things were in the 60s. 

 

I am most certainly in for the long haul for this show.  I love the atmosphere, the soundtrack and the story.  Win win.

[TattleTeeny]

If the show portrayed him as he became it would be very difficult to explain how he managed to convince people to abandon their lives and run off to live in his Family.

 

Agreed, and many people then and through the years--even the prosecution--maintained that he was that breed of charismatic that could charm people. He was by no means a dumb guy either; he was basically a profiler before profiling was a known thing and knew what to look for in a follower. That said though, not too many of his followers required all that much convincing to abandon their lives.

Edited May 30, 2015 by TattleTeeny

[Free]

It would've been better without the Manson storyline, imo.

 

Yeah same, the series even veers off into different storylines, so it would've been better to just focus on the cops storyline instead of the Mason stuff or any of the other subplots (ex. Black Panther stuff).

[John S]

Yeah, exactly. When you aren't loving the two lead characters anymore because they're behaving so frustratingly, you're kind of ready to stop watching the show. I may not have regularly watched season 9. I think I was burnt out by that point and didn't like the direction the writers were taking Mulder and Scully as characters.

 

 

So the rest of the episodes are going to be available to watch now On Demand, or...? How does this work?

On my cable, On Demand is one Channel 1. You go to Primetime, select NBC, go down to Aquarius and select the episode that you wish to watch. You can also watch it on your computer on nbc.com.

[Clanstarling]

In terms of the title "Aquarius" - I think it's less a riff on "Zodiac" and more an ironic nod to the song about what some optimistic innocents thought the era was supposed to be: "The Age of Aquarius" by the 5th Dimension : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE

Edited May 30, 2015 by clanstarling

[sinkwriter]

 

Agreed, and many people then and through the years--even the prosecution--maintained that he was that breed of charismatic that could charm people. He was by no means a dumb guy either; he was basically a profiler before profiling was a known thing and knew what to look for in a follower. That said though, not too many of his followers required all that much convincing to abandon their lives.

 

Agreed. I think if a person is "lost" enough, or angry enough at the world, perhaps even desperately crave someone to give them what they don't have... if the manipulative leader knows what they're doing (knows well what to look for and how to pinpoint their weaknesses and needs),  it's probably easier than we think to "capture" some followers. 

 

Even just online when I went to look up a clip of Steve Railsback's performance as Charles Manson, I saw people had posted scary comments about how much they like or even love Manson. They could simply be trolls looking to stir up shit, but they could also be people who find him fascinating and don't necessarily disagree with some of his diatribes. I think there will always be someone out there who would follow someone like Manson. 

 

That thought scares the crap out of me.

[marceline]

This show feels like a piece of experimental theatre. I feel like there's a lot of potential stories here yet I don't believe that any of them will achieve that potential. Still, I applaud the risk taking.

[psychoticstate]

Yeah same, the series even veers off into different storylines, so it would've been better to just focus on the cops storyline instead of the Mason stuff or any of the other subplots (ex. Black Panther stuff).

 

I applaud that the show is portraying the gritty underbelly of LA during the late 60s.  Manson was a part of that, although it wasn't fully realized until after the summer of 1969.  I like that he and his Family are a subplot to the Sam Hodiak story.  Even though it's fictionalized, I can't help myself from thinking when a character has a gun or something like that on Manson, if only they had pulled the trigger, so many lives would have been saved.

[Free]

I applaud that the show is portraying the gritty underbelly of LA during the late 60s.  Manson was a part of that, although it wasn't fully realized until after the summer of 1969.  I like that he and his Family are a subplot to the Sam Hodiak story.  Even though it's fictionalized, I can't help myself from thinking when a character has a gun or something like that on Manson, if only they had pulled the trigger, so many lives would have been saved.

 

I think my problems stems from how much the storylines diverges instead of something more intertwined, it's like the show is juggling several subplots at once and it keeps getting further and further away.

[sinkwriter]

 

I think my problems stems from how much the storylines diverges instead of something more intertwined, it's like the show is juggling several subplots at once and it keeps getting further and further away.

 

One problem with using the Manson story as a subplot (or any plot, really) is that it's too well known. We know that a guy named Sam Hodiak is not the person who brought down Charles Manson, so how do the writers/showrunners complete this story and keep it within the scope of Hodiak and his life? Eventually he can't be part of solving the case, unless they're planning on doing some major rewriting of history.

[Free]

One problem with using the Manson story as a subplot (or any plot, really) is that it's too well known. We know that a guy named Sam Hodiak is not the person who brought down Charles Manson, so how do the writers/showrunners complete this story and keep it within the scope of Hodiak and his life? Eventually he can't be part of solving the case, unless they're planning on doing some major rewriting of history.

 

That's probably why it diverges and basically becomes more procedural and the Manson plot becomes more and more separate from the cops storylines.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Free

[TattleTeeny]

It's only 1967 on the show now, so maybe it's not even going to get that far? Is it just a summer show? 

[EarlGreyTea]

The entire series seems to have been shot predominantly in the dark and with every shadow possible. I have to watch with the lights off and adjust my TV settings so I can see anything.

 

Charlie speaks in fucking metaphor so much that I just want to throttle him. Granted it's probably realistic, but I just want to smack him. As an English major he reminds me of the more pretentious lit students I've met.

 

Also, Grey Damon and the guy he busted for drugs look too much alike. So annoying when I can't tell them apart.

 

Finally, it's been said in this thread, but what is the point of doing the Manson story and fictionalizing most of it. This is of those rare times that the real-life story is more interesting than the fictional one.

 

I sound like a hater, but overall I'm in. I'm a sucker for period pieces, especially this time period. And the music is great.

Edited May 31, 2015 by EarlGreyTea

[Free]

It's only 1967 on the show now, so maybe it's not even going to get that far? Is it just a summer show? 

 

I heard they were saving that stuff for later down the road if they get picked up for more seasons, but it is a Summer show.

[sinkwriter]

 

That's probably why it diverges and basically becomes more procedural and the Manson plot becomes more and more separate from the cops storylines.

 

I don't think they're keeping it separate. The episodes I've seen so far have Hodiak still fully connected to the Manson case.

 

I mean, they could milk it for however long they think the show could last, I suppose, but at some point it's going to seem ridiculous, like how could they let this monster get away with so much if he was already on their radar so far back?

[TattleTeeny]

This is of those rare times that the real-life story is more interesting than the fictional one.

I sound like a hater, but overall I'm in. I'm a sucker for period pieces, especially this time period. And the music is great.

 

A few years ago, and this was me with The Tudors!

I just don't get how and why supposedly powerful people are kowtowing to him. I feel like the dad could take care of some hippie without breaking a sweat, considering how the subculture was viewed by mainstream society in general.

Edited May 31, 2015 by TattleTeeny

[Free]

I don't think they're keeping it separate. The episodes I've seen so far have Hodiak still fully connected to the Manson case.

 

I mean, they could milk it for however long they think the show could last, I suppose, but at some point it's going to seem ridiculous, like how could they let this monster get away with so much if he was already on their radar so far back?

 

That's just how it feels, the cops have moved on to other cases and storylines and Manson does his own thing with the other cult members.

 

They might come back to it if there's another season, but it just feels like it's drifting away from the initial interactions when they were trying to get Emma back to begin with.

 

If they continue to use historical elements, he'll get away with some more stuff before being arrested, otherwise they'll be more fictionalized material.

[AntiBeeSpray]

I don't think they're keeping it separate. The episodes I've seen so far have Hodiak still fully connected to the Manson case.

 

I mean, they could milk it for however long they think the show could last, I suppose, but at some point it's going to seem ridiculous, like how could they let this monster get away with so much if he was already on their radar so far back?

 

I hope that they eventually separate.

[EarlGreyTea]

A few years ago, and this was me with The Tudors!

I just don't get how and why supposedly powerful people are kowtowing to him. I feel like the dad could take care of some hippie without breaking a sweat, considering how the subculture was viewed by mainstream society in general.

 

Yeah, I couldn't watch that show, the historical errors were too much for me to enjoy. Ditto Reign. The errors here don't bug me quite as much because Helter Skelter, which is where most of my Manson family knowledge comes from, is set several years later. When I first heard about this show I assumed Duchovny was playing Bugliosi and I was so excited.

[MarshallB6]

While I appreciate the soundtrack to put us in the era, the music was extremely loud. I kept having to lower the volume when the music played, but then raise it for the dialog - annoying and took away from really getting into the story; not sure I will put up with this and watch the remaining episodes. 

[sinkwriter]

 

That's just how it feels, the cops have moved on to other cases and storylines and Manson does his own thing with the other cult members.

 

Answering this in episode 8 thread.

Edited May 31, 2015 by sinkwriter

[CeeBeeGee]

Do it! That's the book that set me on a 30+ years path of voracious true-crime reading! I remember looking at the bloody letters on the cover of my mom's original paperback (which I still have) in fascination when I was really little, then slamming that thing back onto the shelf and fleeing! I finally read it when I was about 11. It may even be the standard for other nonfiction books I read now; so many true-crime ones are so, so terribly written, salacious, and sensationalized to the point of being disrespectful (same with a lot of today's nonfiction crime TV shows too).

 

Helter Skelter haunted my childhood. I made the mistake around age 8 of peeking through my Mom's copy and the pictures absolutely messed me up, even with the bodies whited out. For years I was literally convinced every night that Charles Manson was outside the window--every time the leaves moved I saw the shadows on the wall and was terrified. After a few years I finally started to grow out of it and then my Mom made the mistake of taking me to see the original Amityville Horror, which just started it up again except that now I was terrified of boathouses and sewing rooms and flies.

 

The premiere was interesting but everyone seemed way too clean. Emma wouldn't have looked quite so radiant after a few weeks with the Family. (That actress is stunning though.)

[Anela]

I think a lot of tv shows these days have those kinds of commercials :(. So I guess they think people are really stupid. *shrugs*

 

/some what OT

 

Me too. But tbh with all of the movies and books, etc., over the years about it he's gotten it plenty.

I meant over the years. :) 

[TattleTeeny]

Helter Skelter haunted my childhood. I made the mistake around age 8 of peeking through my Mom's copy and the pictures absolutely messed me up, even with the bodies whited out. For years I was literally convinced every night that Charles Manson was outside the window--every time the leaves moved I saw the shadows on the wall and was terrified. After a few years I finally started to grow out of it and then my Mom made the mistake of taking me to see the original Amityville Horror, which just started it up again except that now I was terrified of boathouses and sewing rooms and flies.

 

The premiere was interesting but everyone seemed way too clean. Emma wouldn't have looked quite so radiant after a few weeks with the Family. (That actress is stunning though.)

OH MY GOODNESS, you poor thing! I guess some genres are not for everyone. But try to tell a little kid that...

And, yes--lots of the hippie girls had pretty shiny hair too. I'll grant that maybe someone could maintain a radiance if the sun and wind agreed with her, but no one's hair would be gleaming a dust-free! Come on now (says the woman with a knotted poof on top of her head because she fell asleep with a bun-esque 'do).

[AntiBeeSpray]

I meant over the years. :) 

 

So did I, in part :(.

[riverheightsnancy]

I was actually thinking Steve Railsback  from the 1970's version but Jeremy was better then this guy too.

Just to weight in, I liked Adam Kenneth Wilson's portrayal of Manson in the made for TV movie/sort-of documentary Manson. He has the really dark eyes and when a bit younger (with the longer hair) you could see how he might be able to charm the ladies but also could be a real crazed killer. 

[Syndicate]

Why in the world is the entire first season of this show already available for online viewing?  I can't see how this will inspire people to tune in every week if it's already available in a format where people can watch the entire season in one day.

[AntiBeeSpray]

Why in the world is the entire first season of this show already available for online viewing?  I can't see how this will inspire people to tune in every week if it's already available in a format where people can watch the entire season in one day.

 

Just a wild guess: Maybe they figure they might as well do this in case the show gets cancelled and they won't be able to air all of the episodes.

[ABay]

Why in the world is the entire first season of this show already available for online viewing?  I can't see how this will inspire people to tune in every week if it's already available in a format where people can watch the entire season in one day.

I'll be watching it week by week because it isn't on Directv's on demand menu and I don't want to watch it on my pc. If it was available, I'd probably watch a couple of episodes at a time but more than that would be too much to take at once.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

In terms of the title "Aquarius" - I think it's less a riff on "Zodiac" and more an ironic nod to the song about what some optimistic innocents thought the era was supposed to be: "The Age of Aquarius" by the 5th Dimension : https://www.youtube....h?v=kjxSCAalsBE

 

Definitely a generational divide, I was looking at comments on IMDB and there were questions about the title, as someone born in the 50's and a teen in the 70's the title Aquarius is obvious, the Hippie era, Age of Aquarius, Hair the musical etc.

Speaking as someone who was also born in the fifties and thus skews on the older side of this generational divide - I still think the title is a nod to Zodiac.  I get the whole "irony" of Aquarius and of course this IS the case that immediately in the press (the local Los Angeles press especially) became THE cautionary anti-hippie true crime tale.  "All you need is love???!!??? - why, you DUMBASS....."  But even with all that (and believe me there was a LOT of "all that") this was never ever described as the Aquarius, Aquarian, etc. case.  They were the Tate-LaBianca Murders.

 

I mean, everyone old enough to remember this time period first hand gets the Age of Aquarius stuff.  But I don't know that younger people would immediately get that (thinking that the SONG Age of Aquarius would be the major reference for this time being an example of that - this Aquarian Age stuff was everywhere at that time), and the Zodiac movie was more recent.

 

Or I could be completely out to lunch on this.  It happens:)

[AntiBeeSpray]

I think it could be both too. Since the time period was on both sides of it. The all you need is love side and the wearier side.

 

What seemed to happen is that it fell apart with Altamont, the Manson murders, etc. It became very nasty, very fast. This is what I've gathered history wise. The movement was started (for lack of a better word) innocently enough, but then you get the weirdos and the hangers on joining, and that doesn't help any movement, regardless of the time period imo.

[LeGrandElephant]

As one data point - I'm 30, and when I heard the title I immediately thought of that song where they sing "its the age of aquaaarius" but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean besides that it has something to do with the 60s. And, without looking it up, I don't know who that song is by. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by LeGrandElephant

[walnutqueen]

5th Dimension

 

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
The Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

 

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

 

(Let the sunshine in ...)

 

                         
  

[LeGrandElephant]

I could sing along with the chorus, but I don't know much else about it. I didn't think of the zodiac (or the Zodiac movie, which I haven't seen). 

Edited May 31, 2015 by LeGrandElephant

[ratgirlagogo]

The song is from the Broadway musical Hair. (well, debuted at the Public Theatre and then went to Broadway).

[Intocats]

Speaking as someone who was also born in the fifties and thus skews on the older side of this generational divide - I still think the title is a nod to Zodiac.  I get the whole "irony" of Aquarius and of course this IS the case that immediately in the press (the local Los Angeles press especially) became THE cautionary anti-hippie true crime tale.  "All you need is love???!!??? - why, you DUMBASS....."  But even with all that (and believe me there was a LOT of "all that") this was never ever described as the Aquarius, Aquarian, etc. case.  They were the Tate-LaBianca Murders.

 

I mean, everyone old enough to remember this time period first hand gets the Age of Aquarius stuff.  But I don't know that younger people would immediately get that (thinking that the SONG Age of Aquarius would be the major reference for this time being an example of that - this Aquarian Age stuff was everywhere at that time), and the Zodiac movie was more recent.

 

Or I could be completely out to lunch on this.  It happens:)

No, ratgirlagogo, you aren't out to lunch. I was born in 1958 and lived in Los Angeles (Hawthorne, to be exact) in the summer of 1969 when the Tate-LaBianca-Folger-Frykowski-Sebring-Parent murders took place. That summer, I was 11 years old and scared witless. I took to locking my bedroom window, during a hot southern California summer with no air conditioning. 

 

The newspapers and television were filled with horrible accounts of these murders, and no one had heard of Charles Manson or his "family" at that point. It certainly didn't relate to "Aquarius" in any way. Once Manson and his cohorts were identified, it became all about "look at those hippie weirdos", as if everyone with long hair and a guitar was suspect.

 

But "Love Generation"? I don't remember hearing anyone say that in 1969. When a character said, "The love generation plays rough", I had to laugh. Also, the name Emma is somewhat anachronistic and not very common for a girl born in 1952 or thereabouts. Linda, Karen, Susan, Debbie, yes. Emma, no.

[shapeshifter]

I assumed "Aquarius" was from the song, and "Hodiak" was based on the Zodiac killer.

Now I see that there are several movies based on the Zodiac killer, with the most recent one featuring an "amateur detective." The CSI Miami lead character/detective, Horatio Cane, was referred to as "Ho," so maybe Hodiak is a cross between Zodiak and Horatio.

It's very easy to see connections, but it would be nice to get some confirmation from the writers.

...the name Emma is somewhat anachronistic and not very common for a girl born in 1952 or thereabouts. Linda, Karen, Susan, Debbie, yes. Emma, no.

Good catch! I guess that proves I'm too enamored with the show at this point to be impartial. Edited May 31, 2015 by shapeshifter

[LeGrandElephant]

I'm always confused when people complain a classic name is anachronistic, unless it is really literally historically impossible. Emma may not have been a common name for a girl her age, but it's a classic enough name that I'm sure there were some girls named Emma in that age group, even if they weren't super common. Maybe her mom liked the classic book Emma. It's not like they had her named Jayd3n.

[Intocats]

Jayd3n! LOL!

 

I said "not very common", not "impossible". Nowadays, parents want their children's names to be unique. Back when I was in school, there were usually five Debbies, three Susans , three Karens, two Kathys and one Cathy. There might be a Vicki or a Patti or two in the mix. No one was trying to be unique or make a statement, or recall names from literature or the distant past like they do now.

 

Not to mention ethnic names which are common today, depending on the area where you live. I'm talking about 1969 Los Angeles.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Intocats

[AntiBeeSpray]

No, ratgirlagogo, you aren't out to lunch. I was born in 1958 and lived in Los Angeles (Hawthorne, to be exact) in the summer of 1969 when the Tate-LaBianca-Folger-Frykowski-Sebring-Parent murders took place. That summer, I was 11 years old and scared witless. I took to locking my bedroom window, during a hot southern California summer with no air conditioning. 

 

The newspapers and television were filled with horrible accounts of these murders, and no one had heard of Charles Manson or his "family" at that point. It certainly didn't relate to "Aquarius" in any way. Once Manson and his cohorts were identified, it became all about "look at those hippie weirdos", as if everyone with long hair and a guitar was suspect.

 

But "Love Generation"? I don't remember hearing anyone say that in 1969. When a character said, "The love generation plays rough", I had to laugh. Also, the name Emma is somewhat anachronistic and not very common for a girl born in 1952 or thereabouts. Linda, Karen, Susan, Debbie, yes. Emma, no.

 

Exactly. I wasn't around then, but given the events that were taking place by then, it doesn't make sense nor does it fit any character to be saying that. Imo, it's just a hook line for the show *shrug*.

[TattleTeeny]

I'm always confused when people complain a classic name is anachronistic, unless it is really literally historically impossible. Emma may not have been a common name for a girl her age, but it's a classic enough name that I'm sure there were some girls named Emma in that age group, even if they weren't super common. Maybe her mom liked the classic book Emma. It's not like they had her named Jayd3n.

Then I hope you stayed away from the Mad Men threads; anachronisms were called out left and right, and many posters were often completely wrong. Lots of, "...but I never witnessed it so it couldn't have been a thing."

[EarlGreyTea]

But "Love Generation"? I don't remember hearing anyone say that in 1969. When a character said, "The love generation plays rough", I had to laugh. Also, the name Emma is somewhat anachronistic and not very common for a girl born in 1952 or thereabouts. Linda, Karen, Susan, Debbie, yes. Emma, no.

 

This is kind of what's turned me off the show a bit. Someone upthread mentioned Zodiac, and I highly recommend it. What I liked is that there weren't any kind of overt references to the period like there are in Aquarius. It didn't try so hard to force the time period on you. Whereas with Aquarius there's lines like the one you mentioned, or when they made a big thing out of having to find a pay phone (which was a ruse, but still). A similar scenario happened in Zodiac, where a cop needed a phone to make a call, but all the character did was quickly find it, use it, and move on.

 

I will say I like the colors they used in Aquarius. Kind of like what'd you'd see in a film of that time period.

Edited May 31, 2015 by EarlGreyTea