S02.E07: 207

[SlackerInc]

Milburn, I don't agree, but I have to credit you for eloquence!

[cardigirl]

From the New York Times Ask a Showrunner article with Sarah Treem

 

But Noah’s actually the only character, and this was purposeful, whose biggest conflict is internal. What I find interesting about that is that people are less forgiving of him and his choices. I think they can’t figure out why he’s doing what he’s doing. They can’t point to something outside the character that explains his actions. I find that really fascinating in terms of the way we think and understand ourselves. I think, for me as a writer, a lot of how I understand my own narrative has to do with what I’m wrestling with internally, and that’s probably why I write. But then, I think sometimes, for people who don’t spend their entire lives locked in their heads, the way they understand their own choices actually has more to do with external factors. People are always like, “You must hate Noah.” And I’m like, are you kidding? Noah is me. I love Noah. And, actually, I think the whole writers’ room feels that way. We are Noah’s biggest fans because he’s the character we most identify with.

 

Don't know if I buy this argument as to why many people despise Noah (or dislike intensely) but this is what the showrunner thinks of him.  

[GeminiDancer]

I agree with Treem in that his conflict is internal. However, what makes him so unlikable is how he projects his problems onto everyone else, and he can't handle people calling him on his crap. 

[Otherkate]

I think she's so off base and her thinking seems a lot more simplistic than I would expect from someone who created this show. I think so many of us find it difficult to excuse Noah's behavior because he does embody the things we have inside ourselves that we hate or that we struggle with. I write as well and, honestly, I would totally love writing for Noah over the other characters. 

[SlackerInc]

People are always like, “You must hate Noah.” And I’m like, are you kidding? Noah is me. I love Noah. And, actually, I think the whole writers’ room feels that way. We are Noah’s biggest fans because he’s the character we most identify with.

 

I love this--thank you.  I like Noah too, except that I didn't like what he did in the scene that ended with "I'm pregnant"--so I would no longer say I "love" him like I might have earlier.

 

So this just underlines the point I made upthread.  If you think this is a show about a narcissistic asshole and the terrible things he does to others around him, then no: the show is not actually the show you think you're watching.  It's not going to take the path you will expect it to on that basis.  Not when everyone in the writer's room loves him and relates to him.

 

I suppose if you watched it without learning about any of these metatextual comments, as Milburn Stone seems to wish to (though I'd object that audience commentary as we engage in here is also metatextual) you might go for a while without thinking the writers are doing a piss-poor job of portraying a good guy, but instead think they are doing a great job of portraying a bad dude.  But then when Noah does something inarguably noble and selfless, such a person would presumably find that inexplicable and wonder what the hell the writers were doing at that point.

 

Playing devil's advocate, totally contradicting what I've said previously, I suppose there's another possibility.  In real life, hardly anyone is loved by everyone or hated by everyone.  Maybe the writers are so good at fleshing out a three-dimensional person (and with their past work on the brilliant In Treatment, that is definitely possible), that they are presenting someone who is not everyone's cup of tea, even if he is theirs (and mostly mine).  I mean, I suspect that many or most of the people who dislike Noah so much wouldn't like me IRL, but I have no desire to change and be the sort of person they would like better.  I think I'm just fine as I am.  The difference being, I guess, that such people IRL will just not be involved very intimately in my life unless maybe they are an in-law or something.  But when watching this show, the folks who are like oil to Noah's water are still plunged into his milieu (into his head, even) for the better part of an hour each week, as long as they continue to watch the show.

 

It reminds me a bit of the character Monica Potter played on Parenthood, Kristina Braverman.  A lot of viewers complained bitterly about what an awful character she was, while a few stood up for her.  My take on her was always that she was absolutely the furthest from the kind of person I'd want to spend time around in real life ("buzzkill" was my operative phrase, which

became ironic at a certain point

).  But I didn't think she was a terrible character, because she was realistically written and well acted, and was the kind of person I've met many times IRL but have rarely seen on TV.  From her perspective, she has good motives and is doing the right thing.  For that matter, another good example of this was another character on the show: Crosby Braverman.  Many viewers disliked him for quite different reasons (he was certainly no buzzkill: he liked to party and generally had a slacker mien about him) but I loved him and identified with him as a "slacker dad".

 

So, yeah, I'm convincing myself (although I won't actually go back and delete what I wrote earlier in the comment, because I think it's still a possibility).  Noah is Noah, and if you like and relate to that kind of person, you will like him.  If you don't, you won't.  It is definitely similar also to a movie stillshimpy turned me on to that I just watched yesterday, called Twice in a Lifetime.  In that movie, the main character, played by Gene Hackman,

engages in an affair with a character played by Ann-Margret and ends up running off with her.  This shatters his sweet wife, played by Ellen Burstyn, and divides his family.  But the Hackman character is just trying to be happy.  He's not the "bad guy", at least not from the perspective of the writer or director.  Neither is the Ann-Margret character, who feels conflicted and guilty about the family's woundedness, but still is not willing to end the relationship.  But the audio commentary was fascinating: the director and a couple of the actors talk about how controversial the film was, how in test screenings many people just couldn't get on board with having any sympathy with Hackman's character.  

And we're seeing much the same here, thirty years later.  Which is why in some sense it's kind of amazing that these things ever even get made, other than as off-Broadway plays or microbudget independent films.

Edited November 19, 2015 by SlackerInc

[Palomar]

One thing I can say is although I dislike both of them, I understand Noah and where he is coming from much better than Allison. 

[Milburn Stone]

I suppose if you watched it without learning about any of these metatextual comments, as Milburn Stone seems to wish to (though I'd object that audience commentary as we engage in here is also metatextual) you might go for a while without thinking the writers are doing a piss-poor job of portraying a good guy, but instead think they are doing a great job of portraying a bad dude.  But then when Noah does something inarguably noble and selfless, such a person would presumably find that inexplicable and wonder what the hell the writers were doing at that point.

 

First, thanks for the compliment upthread, SlackerInc. Hey, if I can't persuade you, at least I'll take points for eloquence. :)

 

Now, re the above: I make a big distinction between discussion on this thread and extracurricular guidance from the author. I don't see discussion among us audience members as meta at all. We're sharing our responses and learning from each other. I know I learn from others here. With Sarah Treem, on the other hand, what she has to say through her art, she's saying through her art. Can you imagine reading a novel, and in the margins of every page the novelist has written notes to the reader, saying "OK, here's what I mean you to think about my protagonist now"? The idea is absurd. You'd reject it out of hand as a sure sign the author wasn't confident enough in her skills as a novelist to create the effects she was after.

 

But here's the thing that disproves your conjecture above. I don't read or listen to anything Sarah Treem says about the show, and I don't think Noah is simply a bad dude! Somehow I'm getting that Noah is a complex character with noble and ignoble tendencies, and motivations and desires that I can identify with as a human being! And I'm getting that from the show. The hypothesis that only with Sarah Treem's extracurricular guidance would I be able to discern that is provably false.

[SlackerInc]

I remembered that you didn't dislike any of the principals, Milburn; and for that matter I don't think I myself needed Sarah Treem's guidance to not hate Noah either.  I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but I see that my wording was poor and I kind of mishmashed some sentences together.  Sorry about that!

[Boundary]

I don't read or listen to anything Sarah Treem says about the show, and I don't think Noah is simply a bad dude! Somehow I'm getting that Noah is a complex character with noble and ignoble tendencies, and motivations and desires that I can identify with as a human being! And I'm getting that from the show. The hypothesis that only with Sarah Treem's extracurricular guidance would I be able to discern that is provably false.

 

Yes that hypothesis is false. Again I'll state that Treem herself put the conflicting scenes and I think she has been careful not to state which POV is more accurate, say. I certainly haven't read every interview she's given but I'd argue the analogy of a novel full of notes in the margins probably doesn't apply here. But I find most of her stuff quite useful and it makes me trust this project more in her hands. For instance, in the NYT article referred above, she states how for Alison, Helen and Cole there are external factors that help us understand the character choices and that Noah is more internal, which makes harder to put a handle on his motivation. As you admitted, you probably don't need this to enjoy because 1) you knew this already and 2) while it is not really is extraneous, it is optional. The Game Of Thrones writer, to use an example, has given numerous helpful guidance via interviews (dubbed So Spake Martin or SSM by one major fan website). These generally don't reveal any plot details but offer guidance (or not as the case may be) on the Faith of the Seven or how magic works, for instance. Now, one doesn't need these "notes in the margins" certainly, but it gives fans solid ground, where one might be needed, to speculate. If not, one can still enjoy the book and tv series without them.

 

Similarly here, I can state that it's not necessary for Treem to tell us how much that apartment cost or whether artistic license was used to portray how successful Noah and Alison had become. However, should she clarify either way, does it hinder the drama? No, but it'd help people who are really preoccupied by this point, yet for whom resolution of the matter doesn't really change the course of the show or affect future plots, i.e. it's not a spoiler. In the same vein, Noah and Alison being in love is not a spoiler, we have future scenes that point to them still being together. Beyond that, how else can we prove/disprove that they are in love? It's like saying Scotty died, who killed him is the spoiler. So would Treem really expose that? But when she says Alison and Noah are in love, it's nothing more than what they've said on the show. In fact, to take Treem's assertion further, both characters believe they're in love and that's all that matters in order to make them act in certain ways. Furthermore, Alison and Noah breaking up in some future season will not prove that they weren't in love after all. Just like Cole/Alison and Noah/Helen have just done.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Boundary

[taragel]

Rewatching the episode and it looks like Cole takes the money clip with him. He peels some dollars off it and shoves those in his pocket with one hand, picks up his keys with the other but still has the clip in that hand as he heads out the door.

[cardigirl]

"bad dude. But then when Noah does something inarguably noble and selfless, such a person would presumably find that inexplicable and wonder what the hell the writers were doing at that point."

At this point, I think he'd have to die for one of his kids (which is maybe what he's doing for Whitney if she did indeed kill Scotty. I have my doubts about that.) So if he is indeed lovable, I'd like to see some of it portrayed.

I think the writers love Noah because it's fun to write about an asshat.

Edited November 20, 2015 by cardigirl

[Former Nun]

I think the writers love Noah because it's fun to write for about an asshat.

 

 

Maybe they remember their fathers.

Rewatching the episode and it looks like Cole takes the money clip with him

 

 

I did think his accusation may have been a method to get her to leave...leave and be angry.

[albaniantv]

Not finding Noah or Alison attractive is making it difficult for me to stay engaged with this show. Weirdly, I used to really like Dominic West, especially in this cool Brit series about the BBC, The Hour. 

 

Wondering if Alison served as inspiration and muse and model for the successful book, who will fill that role for the next book?  Allison best hold on to that money from the sale of her house and not be so quick to become Mrs. Second Wife of Mr. Already Looking.

 

Agree poor overlooked, underestimated Whitney is most likely to have rolled over Scotty. (I say "poor" just because no one ever remembers teenagers fall in love with the worst people--come on, we all did it) But could she keep quiet about it? 

[Former Nun]

Weirdly, I used to really like Dominic West, especially in this cool Brit series about the BBC, The Hour.

 

 

Not my favorite even then...there.  

[Constantinople]

In the same vein, Noah and Alison being in love is not a spoiler, we have future scenes that point to them still being together.

Living together and being in love are not the same thing.

 

Beyond that, how else can we prove/disprove that they are in love? It's like saying Scotty died, who killed him is the spoiler. So would Treem really expose that? But when she says Alison and Noah are in love, it's nothing more than what they've said on the show. In fact, to take Treem's assertion further, both characters believe they're in love and that's all that matters in order to make them act in certain ways. Furthermore, Alison and Noah breaking up in some future season will not prove that they weren't in love after all. Just like Cole/Alison and Noah/Helen have just done.

Whether Alison and Noah are in love, or whether Noah is a good guy, isn't a matter of conclusive proof but viewers' opinions. That's why, in my opinion, Sarah Treem should refrain from telling viewers what is or is not true about the characters. What happens during an episode is canon. How viewers should interpret it is not.

[Sara2009]

What's with this business of the Lockharts' being Catholic? Normally, I wouldn't think anything of a mention of a family's religion, but it seemed to me that the writers REALLY wanted us to notice it. In the course of a few minutes at Thanksgiving dinner, the sister-in-law drops a mention of having had a Mass for her lost baby, there's a mention of Father so-and-so and then the family pointedly prays the Catholic version of the Our Father at dinner (Catholic version ends at "deliver us from evil") . Who uses the Our Father as a grace before meals? No one I've ever known - or seen on tv. The writing's usually pretty

tight and I can't figure out why they'd drop all these Catholic anvils (IMO, they did everything but waive rosaries around) if it

wasn't important. But why would it be important?

FWIW, my childhood best friend's family always said that prayer before meals, and they weren't even deeply religious( or Catholic.)So it happens. Edited November 20, 2015 by Sara2009

[Nanrad]

This is a stupid nitpick, but I've had babies in the last few years, and I hear the heartbeat at every visit, starting way before it's audible by stethoscope. She's just hearing it? And how is she 4 months along and that big? Again, I'm being picky, but it was a weird disconnect.

I thought it was just me--I'm like. "She's way too big for four months!!!" I was trying to rationalize it as never having a child, but, again, she is way too big.

 

Yes, I'm confused why Helen's house is strictly hers, yet Alison's has to be split with Cole. 

 

I think society, in general, still needs to catch up with modern times.  Both wives in this story have the greater wealth, and it came from inheritance.  Yet Noah's a pig for even thinking of Helen's money, while poor old Cole deserves at least half of Alison's money.  Noah's a moocher for living in his wife's house, while Cole lived in Alison's, and apparently still did while hooking up with Luisa.  I wonder how Noah and Helen would be perceived if the roles were reversed.  Noah had a trust that paid for the marital home, and his parents paid for the children's schooling.  He has a vanity store that does nothing but lose money, while Helen works full time during the school year, and tries to write her second book over the summers.  Is Helen the moocher?  It interests me, because I really have to think on this because I seem to be a little old-fashioned myself.

Basically, I don't want Noah to have anything of Helen because he's a fucking asshole. This is not just about the cheating, he's an asshole and I don't want him to have shit. It's been mentioned by the show runner and others that Noah behaves the way he does because his reactions is based on internal shit (and because he's a writer) and, as a very internal person, I saw bullshit. I write a lot, I'm an incredibly internal person with very controlled behavior and I'm described as nice and caring. I loathe Noah. Honestly, Noah is most likely being called a moocher because of how people feel about him in general and not because he's a man.

 

Regarding Cole, he doesn't even want Alison's house. He's made it clear several time that she can do what she wants with the place. He spent a good chunk of time living in the trailer in front of the house. Until t he house is sold or until Alison tells him explicitly to stay out of it, I don't give a damn where he lives. 

 

Personally, I find it quite disturbing and hateful that someone who works a respectable, well-paying, full-time job with benefits including paid vacation and health insurance, etc, and then even spends their time off trying to startup a second career could ever be called a "moocher."  That sounds like it comes from Mitt Romney, who claimed that 45% of Americans were 'moochers," (i.e. low-wage workers, the retired and disabled, children, etc; anyone who isn't wealthy.)  And I'm sure Helen's mother donated big bucks to his political campaign when he said that.  But yes, men who are stay at home parents or who are supported by their wives, or just make less money are the target of a huge amount of shame and "emasculation" in our society. 

I think this is starting to shift, but it's mostly true. At the same time, as I said in the remark above, it has everything to do with Noah rather than the fact that he's a man. Alison flat out called her mother out on her living habits, which is mooching. No one disagreed with that on this board. I think it's pretty much agreed the mother was a moocher. BUT, Noah does come off as a moocher. Not literally, but his aura.

 

Yes, that's what I didn't get about "we're cursed" stuff.  How come Ma Lockhart had a whole bunch of kids?  Did this curse not affect her?  

Maybe they aren't really Lockharts????

 

It's true, you can't.  But I just think the arc of the series is unlikely to be satisfying to you if you think the protagonists feel dramatically differently about each other than the showrunner says they do.  If I were in your shoes I'd find it hard to see the show as a high quality portrayal of a different relationship than the one Treem thinks she's writing; I'd judge it a failure to put across what it is attempting.  But obviously YMMV.

The author's intent is irrelevant. They've incorrectly executed their intent and their intent doesn't change that. It's one thing to debate the idea and/or meaning of something because it's open to interpretation and it's another to execute in contrary to what you want to happen. As viewers (and readers), we cannot depend on the writers intent, especially show runners. For example, in the X-Files, Chris Carter has done and said so many contradictory things that fans have stopped taken him a face value. Seriously. He flat out said that Mulder and Scully weren't going to get together, then said that was his plan from the begging, and then has gone back and forth with several variations of both sides over the years to current day. THE SHOW RUNNERS/WRITERS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS.

 

If a writer/show runner said that a character was a caring/non violent person, but they've only insulted and physically abused other people, would their intent override their execution. Regardless of intent, perception of material trumps it more times than not. That's why so many books, songs, etc are misinterpreted and taken as truth. 

 

Also what about those who don't keep up with what the show runner says or it isn't available? What then? 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I wish I didn't read that interview with Treem.  Her comments about the rape-ish scene last ep?  I didn't care for (or about) anything she said on that.  So she says she relates to Noah?  Ugh, I wanna shake her words outta my head.  Is she a dickhead too?

Edited November 20, 2015 by ScoobieDoobs

[SlackerInc]

What did she say about that scene?  I looked (in vain) for something on Twitter, as I do have concerns about that.

 

Edited to add: Okay, I found it.  Apparently Ruth Wilson acted it more like a rape than the writers intended, and Treem found that "interesting" so decided to just go with it.  It's too bad she didn't see that this was damaging to the character (Noah) she had already found people felt much more negatively about than she did.

Edited November 20, 2015 by SlackerInc

[Otherkate]

Oh good grief. This is why I'm glad I don't read anything she says. I learned years ago (thank you, Marti Noxon) to stay away from showrunner's interviews (and these days, tweets) during a show's run. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by Otherkate

[nara]

Scotty saying "that's our baby" makes way more sense after the whole "cursed Lockhart offspring" discussion. Wonder why the cursed skipped a generation and allowed all the current Lockhart boys to survive easily to adulthood.

  

Yes, that's what I didn't get about "we're cursed" stuff.  How come Ma Lockhart had a whole bunch of kids?  Did this curse not affect her?

I don't think that she meant that the curse was literally about no children. The curse was about bad things happening to the family, which manifested in different ways: 1) dad hanged himself on Cole's birthday, 2) current generation lost the family property (regardless of the reason), and 3) next generation didn't survive. Three generations after granddad's crime, all trace of the Lockhart's could be wiped out. Of course, she's also being a little dramatic.

[molshoop]

 

I don't think that she meant that the curse was literally about no children. The curse was about bad things happening to the family, which manifested in different ways: 1) dad hanged himself on Cole's birthday, 2) current generation lost the family property (regardless of the reason), and 3) next generation didn't survive. Three generations after granddad's crime, all trace of the Lockhart's could be wiped out. Of course, she's also being a little dramatic.

 

           The current generation could all end up in prison and I don't think Ma is going to take the fall. In fact I could see

            her turning state's evidence against her son's to keep her ass out of jail.

 

            Cherry is my least favorite character.  She is highly manipulative and vicious. I think she is even worse than Helen's

            mother, who is more in your face and "what you see is what you get".  Cherry is all warmth and compassion one

            moment and then verbally eviscerates you the next.

 

            I think she is the Lockhart curse, and I would not be surprised if she killed Scotty. 

[TheFinalRose]

I don't think Noah is simply a bad dude! Somehow I'm getting that Noah is a complex character with noble and ignoble tendencies, and motivations and desires that I can identify with as a human being! And I'm getting that from the show.

 

 

I don't think he's a bad dude either, in fact, I think his saving grace for me is that he is portrayed as a pretty decent dad, after you disregard the fact that he decided not to maintain his relationship with the kids' mother, which is always going to have negative fallout.  I just don't like Dominic West for some reason, so I have a hard time understanding why Allison flipped for him.

 

Also, here's a problem I have with Allison and Cole. As parents who have lost their only child tragically, I think that they would be treated with more kid gloves, especially in their own family and community, than the show portrays.  They would both be given a wide berth to recover, and I think the show just whiffs on this point.  I think being a mother herself would even make Helen conflicted about her opinion of Allison, as first and foremost, a woman who is living through the aftermath of horrible loss, and contribute to Helen's conflict.  To me, it's a dynamic that maybe Treem misses because I'm assuming she's childless, and the fear of losing your child does not fully hit you until they put that baby in your arms and you become responsible for it.  

 

 

I wish I didn't read that interview with Treem.  Her comments about the rape-ish scene last ep?  I didn't care for (or about) anything she said on that.  So she says she relates to Noah?  Ugh, I wanna shake her words outta my head.  Is she a dickhead too?

 

 

Sadly, I kind of feel the same.  I think I expected her to come off as a little deeper. Instead she bugs. She seems a little too pleased with herself.  

 

[Former Nun]

I just don't like Dominic West for some reason, so I have a hard time understanding why Allison flipped for him.

 

 

I agree, TheFinalRose, about not being able to like Dominic West.   Alison is just a completely broken person; maybe she'd flip for anyone who shows her the kind of attention she desires (any?).

[izabella]

What did she say about that scene?  I looked (in vain) for something on Twitter, as I do have concerns about that.

 

Edited to add: Okay, I found it.  Apparently Ruth Wilson acted it more like a rape than the writers intended, and Treem found that "interesting" so decided to just go with it.  It's too bad she didn't see that this was damaging to the character (Noah) she had already found people felt much more negatively about than she did.

 

My conclusion about Treem is that her version of love - what she believes she is portraying on screen between Allison and Noah - looks nothing like my version of love.  Maybe all of Treem's love relationships have been full of doubt, detachment, awkwardness, discomfort and poor communication. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by izabella

[cardigirl]

I wish I didn't read that interview with Treem.  Her comments about the rape-ish scene last ep?  I didn't care for (or about) anything she said on that.  So she says she relates to Noah?  Ugh, I wanna shake her words outta my head.  Is she a dickhead too?

 

Sadly, I kind of feel the same.  I think I expected her to come off as a little deeper. Instead she bugs. She seems a little too pleased with herself.  

Thanks for this, I felt the same way, but couldn't quite put it into words.  It's almost perverse how pleased she is with herself and her perceptions of poor old Noah. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

To me, it's a dynamic that maybe Treem misses because I'm assuming she's childless, and the fear of losing your child does not fully hit you until they put that baby in your arms and you become responsible for it.  

 

Sadly, I kind of feel the same.  I think I expected her to come off as a little deeper. Instead she bugs. She seems a little too pleased with herself.  

 

Wow, that interview was a big mistake for Treem.  Or is it merely a huge eye-opener for us, as to who she really is?  She seems (at least in that interview) short-sighted & clueless.  She actually wanted to present the rape-ish scene ambiguously?  Ugh, just ugh.  And no, I don't think she has any understanding or empathy for the loss of Gabriel & its effect on Allison.  

 

Sigh, I think I'll skip any interviews with Treem in the future.  She comes off as shallow & way too impressed with herself, especially for someone so inexperienced.  Hmmmm, she is sounding familiar.  Is she moving into a billionaire's palace too?  Is there an Eden-alike (or male himbo version of her) trailing Treem around now?  OK then.

Edited November 20, 2015 by ScoobieDoobs

[SlackerInc]

Treem had a baby at some point during production of the first season. When the pilot premiered, she said that she had regretted making Alison lose a child, because once she had a child herself she found it way too painful to write about that--but apparently she was too far along in the process to change that about her character.

[Mackey]

The sequence of events that I found most annoying in this episode was the whole bit from Cole loses erection until Cole arrives with flowers at girl friend's door. It felt exceptionally contrived. Nothing in the sequence felt like the conversation or motivations of real people. It felt like "I just went to therapy and now I'm going to spout what I learned in the most trite way that I can" time. She, OF COURSE, asks him about losing his erection when she told him she loved him. He, OF COURSE, wants to buy a muffin instead of talk. He then accuses her of taking his money clip because, as we find out verrrrry soon, he wants to drive her away. So, OF COURSE, he's cleverly hid his money clip after losing his erection all so he can falsely accuse her and drive her away. That master planner! And, what amazing ability to master plan this "drive her away" and realize he's doing it in such a short time and arrive for kissy kissy revelation of self-awareness to happy turkey time.

[RedheadZombie]

Basically, I don't want Noah to have anything of Helen because he's a fucking asshole. This is not just about the cheating, he's an asshole and I don't want him to have shit. It's been mentioned by the show runner and others that Noah behaves the way he does because his reactions is based on internal shit (and because he's a writer) and, as a very internal person, I saw bullshit. I write a lot, I'm an incredibly internal person with very controlled behavior and I'm described as nice and caring. I loathe Noah. Honestly, Noah is most likely being called a moocher because of how people feel about him in general and not because he's a man.

 

Regarding Cole, he doesn't even want Alison's house. He's made it clear several time that she can do what she wants with the place. He spent a good chunk of time living in the trailer in front of the house. Until t he house is sold or until Alison tells him explicitly to stay out of it, I don't give a damn where he lives. 

 

I think this is starting to shift, but it's mostly true. At the same time, as I said in the remark above, it has everything to do with Noah rather than the fact that he's a man. Alison flat out called her mother out on her living habits, which is mooching. No one disagreed with that on this board. I think it's pretty much agreed the mother was a moocher. BUT, Noah does come off as a moocher. Not literally, but his aura.

 

Well there's fucking assholes in most divorces, and luckily the law is pretty cut and dry regarding who gets what, without having to take a test to prove you're not an asshole.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get shit.  Helen's rich parents will do everything they can to make sure Noah gets nothing, and is alienated from his kids.

 

It's implied that Cole used his half of Alison's house to buy the restaurant.  If true, I'm sure he begged her not to force him to take the money.  Poor old Cole probably took it against his own will.  Of course I don't have a problem with him getting half of the house.  Just as I don't have a problem if Noah gets half of his marital assets.

 

I'm not sure what an aura of a moocher looks like, but I just don't see it.  Since Alison's house is still in escrow, their new home is being paid for exclusively by Noah at this point.  Does that make Alison the moocher?  What about Luisa?  If she's the woman that Cole marries, is she mooching off of him and the money he got from Alison's house?  Where does it end?

 

I come here to post about my shows because I like reading other people's opinions, and I like challenging my own impressions.  But sometimes, as it is here, it's actually ruining my enjoyment of the show.  When the two leads are hated so strongly, and every little thing they do and say is them lying or manipulating, while Cole and Helen are so brave and honest about their own versions - I think I'm going to check out.  Thanks to those I've engaged in discussion with. 

[DarkRaichu]

That master planner! And, what amazing ability to master plan this "drive her away" and realize he's doing it in such a short time and arrive for kissy kissy revelation of self-awareness to happy turkey time.

I am more impressed by Cole's ability to stop by at THREE different Thanksgiving dinners from Montauk to New York in a single night

[ScoobieDoobs]

What was the third one?  Did he stop by Oscar's & have turkey din-din with him?  Maybe the start of their future boss-employee relationship?

[izabella]

Lockhart Family Thanksgiving, Noah's place to drop off Whitney, and then to Lucia's Family Thanksgiving.

[Otherkate]

Man, I would love to have seen what goes down at Thanksgiving dinner at Oscar's.

[SlackerInc]

I come here to post about my shows because I like reading other people's opinions, and I like challenging my own impressions.  But sometimes, as it is here, it's actually ruining my enjoyment of the show.  When the two leads are hated so strongly, and every little thing they do and say is them lying or manipulating, while Cole and Helen are so brave and honest about their own versions - I think I'm going to check out.  Thanks to those I've engaged in discussion with. 

 

Oh no, don't do it!   That's letting the haters win.

 

I was starting to feel the same, that the negativity was reducing my enjoyment of the show.  And I know someone else who told me privately they checked out of the board for the same reason.  But what I've discovered works really well is to very, very liberally use the "block" button.  Then you can just cruise through and see and interact with the posts you like.  Please try that and stay awhile longer...

[cardigirl]

Oh no, don't do it!   That's letting the haters win.

 

I was starting to feel the same, that the negativity was reducing my enjoyment of the show.  And I know someone else who told me privately they checked out of the board for the same reason.  But what I've discovered works really well is to very, very liberally use the "block" button.  Then you can just cruise through and see and interact with the posts you like.  Please try that and stay awhile longer...

I've never been 'driven' from a board, although I've come close on a couple of them here (Doctor Who, The Good Wife) because of the perception that so many people saw the show differently from me. Usually, though, I can get a different perspective and gain something from others' perceptions.

I honestly think the show would benefit if Noah was shown in a better light, but try as I might, I have a difficult time dredging up any affection for the character. The other three main characters have all had their moments that have made me sympathize with them in one way or another, but not Noah.

I don't know if it's something missing in me and my experience of the world, or if it's poor writing or even poor acting...but I have never bought that there was a caring deep love between Alison and Noah. Not what I would call love at any rate. There is passion and desire and sex, but to me that's not love. That's lust, which is always transitory.

However, I hope both of you will stay and give your points of view. The discussion on these threads has added to my enjoyment of the show, so I selfishly would like it to continue.

[Ellaria]

I, too, hope that people won't leave these discussions because others have a different point of view. That would be a shame...especially because this show is all about different perceptions. I think that we have to allow for varying opinions and that means not being incredulous because someone doesn't share your point of view.

I also don't let my perception of this show - or of any show - to be influenced by what the showrunner tells me to think. I judge the work by what is presented on screen. If I need to follow their off screen interviews, tweets, etc to arrive at their intended viewpoint of the show then, IMO, they have not executed properly. And it doesn't mean that I will be disappointed if I have a different take-away at the end. Again, this is especially important in a show that is all about subjectivity.

Here are some of my thoughts:

I loathe Noah. I think that he is a selfish asshole. Regardless, I enjoy watching him because he is never dull. In fact, I can't say too many good things about most of the men in this show. That doesn't make me enjoy this show any less.

I don't believe that Noah and Alison are soul mates. To me, that implies a special and rare connection between two people. Not everyone in a loving relationship is a soul mate with their partner. However, I do believe that there is a connection between Noah and Alison. Powerful emotions drew them together but I'm not sure if it's love...not yet anyway. Can it be some day? Possibly but they have some obvious hurdles to overcome. I have to admit that I am not particularly invested in them as a couple.

Money/wealth/finances are a strong, recurring theme in every relationship. What people have, what they spend, what they wish they could get their hands on...it defines who many of them are and why they make some of the choices that they make. It will be interesting to see what happens with the sale of Alison's beach house.

One last thing...Gottlief's role as a defense attorney is stretching credulity. Can't wait to see what they do with that video and Oscar's statement. Not sure that any of it completely exonerates Noah unless he will try to prove that Alison is the guilty one and Noah is covering for her.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Just caught the window view. Hmmm, lots of other tall hideous new monstrosities. I'd say Chelsea, Chelsea, Chelsea. Maybe it's in one of those hideous new buildings on Seventh Ave. above 23rd, where Katie Holmes hid out for a year or 2 -- until the Tom Cruise money was running low.

 

The NY Post said Katie rented another place in one of those buildings -- a 2 bedroom that went for 24 thou a month, but then she ditched it very quickly cuz . . . well, she doesn't have access anymore to the Tom Cruise-gotta-buy-me-a-wife-so-nobody-will-think-I'm-gay dough. A 4 bed in one of those buildings is easily 50 thou a month. OK, so Max's 50 thou would get 'em thru a month. And maybe Allison's house could get 'em thru a 2 year lease. Maybe.

 

So this insanely expensive apartment is possible for them. Barely. I won't give you a fail on this one, Treem. Just please no more interviews & no more old man boners & absolutely no more purposely "ambiguous" rape scenes, thanks.

 

In that interview -- I know, I know -- I promise won't refer to it again (sorry, but it was so upsetting & disappointing to me for so many reasons, it's burned in my brain) Treem says she has no plans (and no particular interest) in showing the kids' POV. Again, Treem, you so short-sighted. I think Julia Goldani Telles showed herself in this ep to be really quite interesting & surprisingly good as an actress. I'd like to see Whitney's POV.

 

I wanna know why she's throwing herself so hard at Scotty. He's scuzzy, charmless, not much to look at & played by an untalented, awful actor. OK, maybe it is for the usual dumb, senseless teen reasons. In the few scenes where Whitney isn't acting like a screaming brat, where she hugged Helen at the end of the last ep or when she listened sympathetically to Cole talking about his father hanging himself, I thought Julia was really good & I'd like to see more of that. As for the others kids' POV? Nah.

[Mackey]

I think Scotty is very cute.

[truthaboutluv]

With all due respect, I think the posters on here are very polite, respectful of each other's opinions and extremely insightful in their thoughts and feelings. No one is simply posting "Noah is evil and should die..." full stop. Everyone gives long and detailed expressions for why they feel and think what they do. And I find it a bit juvenile and unfair to refer to posters as haters because they do not care for two fictional lead characters. 

 

It seems to me the only "issue" is that some are unhappy that the more common opinion does not align with their feelings. And to that I say, "oh well..." Sometimes that it is simply the nature of discussion boards. I post on the DWTS board where I like Derek Hough and yeah try reading that thread for a season and see the comments about him. And that's worse because he's a real person who some treat with borderline disdain and hatred over a silly dance show. Noah and Alison are fictional characters in a fictional universe. Some people do not care for those characters and express that. Some do and that's fine.

 

I think it is really unfair to make declarations that seemingly suggest that people are ganging up in a sense and taking the fun away from the discussion because they dare to express their dislike of said characters. Especially again when they are mature and thoughtful in their reasons why they feel as they do. Now moderators I apologize if this is off topic but again, I love this show thread and think it has had some really interesting comments and it bothers me to have posters' comments be dismissed and demeaned to being "haters" simply because it doesn't align with one's own thoughts. I think that is really unfair.

Edited November 21, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[SlackerInc]

I, too, hope that people won't leave these discussions because others have a different point of view. That would be a shame...especially because this show is all about different perceptions. I think that we have to allow for varying opinions and that means not being incredulous because someone doesn't share your point of view.

 

I can only speak for myself--although if anyone else agrees and wants to cosign this explanation, they can of course indicate as such by clicking the little thumbs up icon.  :)

 

But personally, I am far from incredulous that others don't share my POV.  If anyone knows me from other show's threads or other places entirely (I use the same handle on Disqus, Twitter, the SDMB, WordPress, etc.), they are well aware that I enjoy a debate.  In fact, if a forum was just in lockstep agreement with everything I thought, I would find that boring and definitely stop posting.  And in regards to this show in particular, I have known for years (from posting on IMDb about movies with nonjudgemental infidelity themes) that there is a strong and vocal majority whose currents run against mine.

 

Secondly, I do not mean to imply that anyone in these threads has been uncivil or out of bounds in the way they have expressed their opinions, or that they don't have a perfect right to those opinions.

 

I just find the steady torrent of vitriol aimed toward Noah (and Alison to some extent) to be hard to take in its full, unwinnowed form, week after week.  I understand that most viewers (that we hear from, anyway, though I expect they are pretty representative) are not invested in their romance, but for those of us who are, I think it's tougher to process than just regular disagreement with our opinions.  That's simply because it's a romance.  One I noted earlier that I found "swoon inducing".  I know that's hard to fathom for most people about this show, but think about a show or movie where you really did get swept up in the romance, and then imagine that in your enthusiasm for this show or movie, you went to its board and found a large number of people, a huge majority, absolutely cutting that couple to ribbons rhetorically.  Maybe some are made of tougher stuff and would shrug that off no matter what, but there are a few of us softies around here, in any event.

 

Again, though, the point is that I don't filter out so many posts because I think the people I'm blocking are trolls, or are guilty of any misconduct.  I just want to taper off the ratio, keeping some of the less vitriolic Noah non-fans visible and engaging with their points, but shifting the ratio so it's not so overwhelmingly negative.  But after already losing one of my favorite posters from the board, and then hearing that one other really good one is leaning out the door...well, those of us that are math nerds know that even if you whittle down the size of your numerator (the Noah haters), you still need to have a decent-sized denominator (the Noah likers or at least non-haters) to keep that ratio from still getting big unless you block almost everyone.

So overall, I am actually expressing a positive appraisal of this board.  I love reading it (my version of it) and posting my own two cents; I am always eager to go check it out first thing, etc.  But I just don't want my favorite posters to leave me!  :)

Edited November 21, 2015 by SlackerInc

[Nanrad]

I think being a mother herself would even make Helen conflicted about her opinion of Allison, as first and foremost, a woman who is living through the aftermath of horrible loss, and contribute to Helen's conflict.  

Does Helen even know that Alison lost a child? Serious question. I rage quit seven episodes in. Even then, Alison losing a child is irrelevant to her helping tear about Helen's marriage. For Alison it plays a big role in her life, but for Helen, she'd feel sorry that another parent lost her child, but it wouldn't change her feelings on the fact that her marriage was ripped apart. One person's grief doesn't give them the right to inflict their grief upon others even if it makes them feel better.

 

The sequence of events that I found most annoying in this episode was the whole bit from Cole loses erection until Cole arrives with flowers at girl friend's door. It felt exceptionally contrived. Nothing in the sequence felt like the conversation or motivations of real people. It felt like "I just went to therapy and now I'm going to spout what I learned in the most trite way that I can" time. She, OF COURSE, asks him about losing his erection when she told him she loved him. He, OF COURSE, wants to buy a muffin instead of talk. He then accuses her of taking his money clip because, as we find out verrrrry soon, he wants to drive her away. So, OF COURSE, he's cleverly hid his money clip after losing his erection all so he can falsely accuse her and drive her away. That master planner! And, what amazing ability to master plan this "drive her away" and realize he's doing it in such a short time and arrive for kissy kissy revelation of self-awareness to happy turkey time.

How is it contrived?

 

From the moment Cole brushed her off after sex, his motivations were quite clear, it didn't come off as subtle or clever in any way. From what we've seen, Cole is going through the motions and Luisa was his only bright spot. He wants to get better, but he isn't sure how. Luisa committing to him in such a way forces him to either shit or get off the pot. So, his natural response was to push her away because he is used to being around toxic people, so he is going to behave in a toxic way. When Luisa refuses to back down from her stance, Cole punishes her for it in order to stay in his habitual state of unhealthy behavior.

 

He knows what he did is wrong and even feels sorry about it, but he's stubborn and is used to dysfunctional behavior. When he decides to go back home and just put up with his fucked up family, when he realizes how truly fucked up they are, especially his mother and dating back to his father and grandfather, he's had enough. He realizes he is a product of his environment and rather move forward with his life than be held down by the past and his family. He goes to Luisa because she's a fresh beginning. Perhaps, it was rushed, but IMO, it did seem like a motivation of a real person. People sometimes cut their families off and, sometimes, it takes a huge event. That last thing was the straw that broke the camel's back. Clearly, he's been pulling away for a while: not talking to his mother, not going to the funeral, avoiding Tommy, etc.

 

Well there's fucking assholes in most divorces, and luckily the law is pretty cut and dry regarding who gets what, without having to take a test to prove you're not an asshole.  I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get shit.  Helen's rich parents will do everything they can to make sure Noah gets nothing, and is alienated from his kids.

 

It's implied that Cole used his half of Alison's house to buy the restaurant.  If true, I'm sure he begged her not to force him to take the money.  Poor old Cole probably took it against his own will.  Of course I don't have a problem with him getting half of the house.  Just as I don't have a problem if Noah gets half of his marital assets.

 

I'm not sure what an aura of a moocher looks like, but I just don't see it.  Since Alison's house is still in escrow, their new home is being paid for exclusively by Noah at this point.  Does that make Alison the moocher?  What about Luisa?  If she's the woman that Cole marries, is she mooching off of him and the money he got from Alison's house?  Where does it end?

 

I come here to post about my shows because I like reading other people's opinions, and I like challenging my own impressions.  But sometimes, as it is here, it's actually ruining my enjoyment of the show.  When the two leads are hated so strongly, and every little thing they do and say is them lying or manipulating, while Cole and Helen are so brave and honest about their own versions - I think I'm going to check out.  Thanks to those I've engaged in discussion with. 

I can't control what happens in real life, but for a fictional character, I hope he doesn't get shit. I'm allowed to feel that way just like you are allowed to love Noah. There is a degree of asshole behavior and right now Noah is at a ten. I've rooted for asshole characters before like House, but somehow, Cole finds himself to be the most loathsome. It seem as if you have a problem with Cole because people like and/or sympathize with him and not Noah. Two different people and two different situations. Whatever happens happens, BUT Helen has never tried to alienate her kids from their father. There is nothing in the series that supports that. Seriously. Unless you were referring to her parents.

 

Why is it so offensive to call Noah a moocher? lmfao. 

 

I'm going to be honest, you are in control of your enjoyment of the show. No one can ruin that for you except yourself. I've liked characters others hated from time to time and it has never ruined my enjoyment of the show because their feelings have nothing to do with mine. It perhaps ruins my mood in the discussion, but not the show. Leads are sometimes hated, it happens, it's up to you to control how you receive those other opinions.

 

I just find the steady torrent of vitriol aimed toward Noah (and Alison to some extent) to be hard to take in its full, unwinnowed form, week after week.  I understand that most viewers (that we hear from, anyway, though I expect they are pretty representative) are not invested in their romance, but for those of us who are, I think it's tougher to process than just regular disagreement with our opinions.  That's simply because it's a romance.  One I noted earlier that I found "swoon inducing".  I know that's hard to fathom for most people about this show, but think about a show or movie where you really did get swept up in the romance, and then imagine that in your enthusiasm for this show or movie, you went to its board and found a large number of people, a huge majority, absolutely cutting that couple to ribbons rhetorically.  Maybe some are made of tougher stuff and would shrug that off no matter what, but there are a few of us softies around here, in any event.

 

Again, though, the point is that I don't filter out so many posts because I think the people I'm blocking are trolls, or are guilty of any misconduct.  I just want to taper off the ratio, keeping some of the less vitriolic Noah non-fans visible and engaging with their points, but shifting the ratio so it's not so overwhelmingly negative.  But after already losing one of my favorite posters from the board, and then hearing that one other really good one is leaning out the door...well, those of us that are math nerds know that even if you whittle down the size of your numerator (the Noah haters), you still need to have a decent-sized denominator (the Noah likers or at least non-haters) to keep that ratio from still getting big unless you block almost everyone.

So overall, I am actually expressing a positive appraisal of this board.  I love reading it (my version of it) and posting my own two cents; I am always eager to go check it out first thing, etc.  But I just don't want my favorite posters to leave me!  :)

Sincere advice: re-assess your expectations and the opinions of others you expect to come with it. I don't think you expect a majority of the board to change its feelings on Noah, so what is it your expect exactly which has led to the intense vitriol being too much? Also, take into consideration that Noah faces way more than Alison. And consider that Alison has had sympathetic moments where as Noah has not for the people who dislike him. IMO, the people who don't buy the romance really are criticizing the individuals more so than the relationship itself. You see just the romance, we view the people.

 

I watch Arrow, on here, the tone is different than IMDB--way different. My expectations are different on each board for that very reason. That goes for the Good Wife as well when I watched it. IMDB favored Will Gardner and TWOP hated him, but that didn't change my love for Will. Even when there were only 4-5 against 10-25 defending him. There difference for me was: everything I believed and against in favor of Will was proven in the series. For Noah, it's either disproven or is ambiguous. But, whether or not people agreed with my proven points, I didn't care because I still loved Will at the end of the day. Someone else's dislike wasn't going to taint that. If you want the numbers to change, either Treem has to write Noah better as a person or see if your expectations for the reception of Noah is realistic for the board at this time.

[cardigirl]

I think a number of posters here have come from TWOP which encouraged snark. Sometimes I loved that and other times it exasperated me. So I see a bit of snark on display here. I swim against a rising tide on a couple of boards here, but I still watch the shows I enjoy despite what I perceive to be a majority opinion against me.

As for this show...I read reviews (on here and in other entertainment/critical venues) and find that we are not alone in our assessent of "the Romance." So, in some ways, I get how difficult it must be to come here and "defend" your characters against that.

I wish I had seen some "romance" between Noah and Alison. Not even in the first season did I feel the "lightening bolt" between them. If I had, I might have been able to sympathize with them more. To me, the most romantic scenes were filmed between the two original couples. In season one, when Noah goes back to Helen for a short while, and he tells her she got snot on his shirt (from crying) and she says "Do you think that's hot?" For me that was an AWWwwWWWW moment of true feeling between them. And then, this season, when Cole is gentle with Alison in asking her what is going on when she shows up at the beach house. To me that is how love behaves.

It's not about judging Noah harshly because he dared to have an affair and leave his loving family. It's about what has been shown to the viewers. In the episode where he has to take on the kids because of Helen's meltdown, even then he was making it about himself. Why didn't he take his son to the ER then? And in the episode where they finally do take him to the ER, he cannot refrain from telling Helen "psychosomatic, huh?" A purely douche move. EVEN then, Helen tells him she's not going to fight him about custody and they can go back to mediation, because she realizes it's hurting everyone to make the kids a battleground, and he cannot bring himself to tell her she's a good mother when she tells him he's a good father.

I am loving the show and the discussion on here, and I definitely think it will be a binge rewatch. Who knows, maybe I'll see more of Noah that I can identify with. But for now, I'm of the group who is not seeing the true love between Alison and Noah. Maybe they will get there.

P.S. As for the argument that we already know that they are still together and happy, well, I'm not certain that's any indication that it's a great love. Noah and Alison were happy with their previous spouses as well, and every marriage/relationship has ups and downs. But we will see, as the season(s) progress, won't we? ;)

Edited November 21, 2015 by cardigirl

[CleoCaesar]

It seems to me the only "issue" is that some are unhappy that the more common opinion does not align with their feelings. And to that I say, "oh well..."

 

Heh. Hear, hear. I don't get why it's necessary to announce one's departure from a board because of "haters." No one really cares, and if a show has enough material to spark discussion and debate, why is that being a "hater"? No one is forcing anyone to read these boards. This show sparks a lot of really well-written posts and dissenting opinions, and I think that's great.

[Milburn Stone]

I just find the steady torrent of vitriol aimed toward Noah (and Alison to some extent) to be hard to take in its full, unwinnowed form, week after week.

 

I know what you mean about threads in general--when it becomes clear that I'm out of sync with all the other posters on a topic, continuing to hang around becomes unrewarding after a point--but my take on whether orthodoxy prevails on this topic is different from yours. I perceive a diversity of opinion here, with no one forced to consider himself a lone voice in the wilderness. Put simply, no matter what you think about Noah and Allison, you've got company! 

 

So I find myself not really comprehending the folks who feel they can't handle the disagreement any longer, and hope you won't become one of them.

[truthaboutluv]

I understand that most viewers (that we hear from, anyway, though I expect they are pretty representative) are not invested in their romance, but for those of us who are, I think it's tougher to process than just regular disagreement with our opinions.  That's simply because it's a romance.  One I noted earlier that I found "swoon inducing".

 

 

Except that is exactly the issue. For many, it is not about not being invested in the romance but not seeing the romance. And the reasons for that has been expressed quite clearly many times. I can only speak for myself but I actually decided to give the show a chance because I was intrigued by the concept and the plot of following two married people who have an affair with each other and see the story play out from both of their point of views. I didn't come into the show thinking, "oh they're having an affair, they're both assholes." 

 

As I and many others have noted, there are many shows with lead characters doing unlikable things and you can still like and appreciate the character and the show and the story. So I went into The Affair with a completely open mind and what I came away thinking from watching the first season is that Noah is a very unlikable person, Alison tends to see herself as a victim a lot and their relationship seemed to be built on a lot of lust and the desire to escape their reality - with Alison it was her grief and pain over losing her son and Noah, his feelings of inadequacy and emasculation. 

 

And this season hasn't done much to change that and it is not about just disliking the characters and not giving them any credit or nitpicking little things. Again, I can only speak for myself but that is certainly not it. Every single episode I point out the very specific things I was bothered with and give clear reasons for why I was bothered. I do not believe I am unfair or not seeing the romance when the writers have the female lead in the relationship looking even more unhappy and miserable now than she did last season, when she's shown having sex with her soon to be ex, when the guy doesn't call and sort of vanishes for six weeks, when the guy looks less than thrilled by a baby (and a baby that may not even be his because that's really going to help sell me on the romance). That's not unfair criticism in my opinion but what the show writers are showing. 

 

Added to that, so many of the things that particularly bothered me about Noah last season gets addressed and called out by Alison - how in his memory she was some oversexed woman throwing herself at him, an almost cold and calculating drug pusher, that she practically begged and came onto him when her grandmother was dying, etc .This is how I interpreted so many of Noah's versions of the affair last season and lo and behold this season, Alison's calling him out on it. So am I really supposed to take from that I was wrong when that's exactly how I interpreted the way Noah saw Alison last season? Since the writers felt it necessary to have her say these exact things. And how then can I see this as some great romance when it seems like Noah really doesn't see who or what Alison really is and vice versa.

 

So once again, I do not want to speak for anyone else but I know personally it is not that I am not invested in Noah and Alison's romance but that I simply do not see a romance. I respect that others do, just like one needs to accept and respect that others don't. I don't see the show as some great love story. I see it about these lives and how the actions of two people affected them all - good or bad. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[RedheadZombie]

I come here to post about my shows because I like reading other people's opinions, and I like challenging my own impressions.  But sometimes, as it is here, it's actually ruining my enjoyment of the show.  When the two leads are hated so strongly, and every little thing they do and say is them lying or manipulating, while Cole and Helen are so brave and honest about their own versions - I think I'm going to check out.  Thanks to those I've engaged in discussion with. 

 

Quoting myself.  I never thought my comments would cause an uproar, so please let me clarify.  I did not use the words "gang up" or "haters", and I certainly never meant to imply it.  This was one of the threads I would head to first on a daily basis, and we're a rather small population on this thread.  That sometimes leads to people asking, "where's such and such, they're usually here all the time".  It was an arrogant assumption that anyone would notice my disappearance, so I'll just quietly slip away.  ;-)

 

 Please try that and stay awhile longer...

 

Thank you, I've enjoyed reading your comments.

 

I've never been 'driven' from a board, although I've come close on a couple of them here (Doctor Who, The Good Wife) because of the perception that so many people saw the show differently from me. Usually, though, I can get a different perspective and gain something from others' perceptions.

 

I don't feel driven away.  I'm actually quite used to having a character I like trashed.  On TWD, I adored Tyreese. He was eviscerated over there and sometimes it broke my heart.  BUT, I also love Carol, Rick, Glenn, as do a number of other people.  And that kind of makes it cool.  You have to decide if you want to thumbs up a comment that trashed one of your favorites, but cheered another. 

 

I, too, hope that people won't leave these discussions because others have a different point of view. That would be a shame...especially because this show is all about different perceptions. I think that we have to allow for varying opinions and that means not being incredulous because someone doesn't share your point of view.

 

I don't think I'm incredulous that people don't agree with me - I was actually surprised that I liked the two leads myself. 

 

With all due respect, I think the posters on here are very polite, respectful of each other's opinions and extremely insightful in their thoughts and feelings.

 

I agree.

 

I'm going to be honest, you are in control of your enjoyment of the show. No one can ruin that for you except yourself. I've liked characters others hated from time to time and it has never ruined my enjoyment of the show because their feelings have nothing to do with mine. It perhaps ruins my mood in the discussion, but not the show. Leads are sometimes hated, it happens, it's up to you to control how you receive those other opinions.

 

I agree.  Perhaps I should have said my mood is being ruined.

 

I think a number of posters here have come from TWOP which encouraged snark. Sometimes I loved that and other times it exasperated me. So I see a bit of snark on display here. I swim against a rising tide on a couple of boards here, but I still watch the shows I enjoy despite what I perceive to be a majority opinion against me.

 

I'm from TWOP, and I'm a bit of a snarker myself.  I actually like Cole, but because it seems some will twist themselves into a pretzel to defend his actions, I like to call him "poor old Cole".

 

Heh. Hear, hear. I don't get why it's necessary to announce one's departure from a board because of "haters." No one really cares <snip>

 

I'm sure you're right.

 

So I find myself not really comprehending the folks who feel they can't handle the disagreement any longer, and hope you won't become one of them.

 

I'm just an enigma, I guess.  I don't know that I can't handle the disagreement - I expect much of it.  It just gets to the point that maybe the effort put into (what I think is) well thought out posts, isn't worth the "reward" of the responses. 

 

Again, no offense meant.

[truthaboutluv]

I actually like Cole, but because it seems some will twist themselves into a pretzel to defend his actions, I like to call him "poor old Cole".

 

 

This is something I guess I don't really see. I guess I'd have to go back and re-read the threads but I actually remember some negative comments about Cole during the first season - comments that stated that he seemed like an asshole, a jerk, cold, etc. And I remember only a few posters noted that it was hard to truly judge Cole or Helen because we the viewers were only seeing them through Alison and Noah's eyes. I don't think that's twisting oneself into a pretzel to defend them but rather being fair, especially in a show that pretty much is built on the unreliable narrator construct. 

 

And in fact, Cole was such a limited presence in the early episodes of the show compared to Helen for example that for the most part, discussion on him was almost nonexistent. This season, some have questioned the big scene in the finale but not that it didn't happen or that Cole brandished a gun (we know he did) but why and how because Alison and Noah's version of the events were so wildly different. 

 

As always, I can only speak for myself. With a character like Cole, it's not so much excusing everything he does (this episode I noted that I thought he was horrible to Luisa, no matter his reasons and she should have made him apologize a lot more before forgiving him and the drinking and driving and coke snorting is not okay) but being empathetic to the fact that a lot of his suffering is through circumstances he couldn't control. 

 

His only child dies, and no, he didn't let him drown just like Alison didn't cause him to die by not taking him to the hospital. It was just a horrible, horrible tragic and unfortunate accident. Then he and his brothers start selling drugs (yes that was a choice - a poor one at that) to sustain a ranch that his mother never tells him was already long gone. And then his wife falls for someone else and leaves him. And then he and his family finally do lose the ranch and pretty much their livelihood. So in one fell swoop this man has lost his child, his wife and his family's legacy. I don't think it's making excuses or defending everything he does to think that is incredibly sad and to feel empathy for the character. 

 

On the contrary, with Noah and Alison, as I've said, I see them as the architect of their own misery. For example, while I can feel for Alison with regard to losing Gabriel, I'm not going to empathize with her feeling low because she realizes she's Noah's mistress. Well of course you are. And I definitely cannot sympathize when her answer to that is to have sex with creepy Oscar. And I can't empathize when she is hated by Noah's kids and soon to be ex-wife and she feels like she has no place in his life because he's struggling through a divorce with a woman with whom he has four kids. Because that was her choice - to walk away from her life for a man who was married with four kids. As I said before, in what world was that not going to be messy and Alison would have to be the world's biggest moron to not realize that.

 

And I can't feel sorry for Noah when his kids are angry at him because he cheated on and is divorcing their mother. Fair or not, that is the reality of divorce and especially when it is made worse because infidelity played a part, as it did in this case. He made that choice and is now having to live with it. Basically, Noah and Alison made a choice to blow up their marriages and life for each other and whatever the consequences that come because of that decision is on them. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Armchair Critic]

This season for me is so much better, now I can't wait to see what happens next.

[Otherkate]

Yeah, I've enjoyed this season much more than I did the first. It's the show I always look forward to every week. The cast is stellar and I think the relationships have gotten even more interesting.