series What series are you watching?
- Thread starter sfoster
- Start date
Ok, I watched the first half of "The Bear", because Mara's recommendations are typically good. I can't quite wrap my head around this one. Perhaps there is some brilliant allegory I'm missing, or maybe I just need to watch the rest of the show. So far, what I'm seeing is A: a tribute to Robert Altman, who invented the idea of making films feel more realistic by having all the characters talk at the same time instead of one at a time. B: The West Wing, but substituting issues like a disagreement over a menu item at a local restaurant for global political issues where millions of lives hang in the balance. All this is ok, and the actors seem competent, but I kind of hate these characters, enraged and brooding and oozing with self importance, constantly breaking into fights over a plate of spaghetti or a donut. The no 2 actor is kind of getting on my nerves, just hitting 10/10 anger level every other line, always about something I would consider a 1/10 catalyst. I'm aware that in niche cultures, people get really excited over details, but still, I can never take the stakes seriously on food based shows, simply because whatever the problem is, it's not going to be a big deal in 3 hours. I'm a bit confused by the 27 minute run time also, which is typically used for comedy shows, or dramedy.
In example, in the show "the offer" which made complete sense to me, and was great, there was the modern day equivalent of 100 million dollars on the line, as well as a dozen people's jobs, and the level of intensity of the arguments is maybe 1/3 what it is on the show about how a guy overcooked a piece of fish. If that guy with the anemic beard screams any louder about cooking things, I'm pretty sure the screen on my tv will break.
I accidentally watched Batman Forever the other day, and I have great news. Basically everyone on this site is just as good, if not dramatically better at writing film dialogue than whoever was hired to write this studio blockbuster. The romantic conversation between batman and Nicole Kidman just made me cringe constantly for 3 minutes.
Season 3 of Locke and Key just came out, so I'll probably watch that soon. Obviously I have to watch all 8 seasons of GOT also, since House of the Dragon comes out in a couple of weeks.
In example, in the show "the offer" which made complete sense to me, and was great, there was the modern day equivalent of 100 million dollars on the line, as well as a dozen people's jobs, and the level of intensity of the arguments is maybe 1/3 what it is on the show about how a guy overcooked a piece of fish. If that guy with the anemic beard screams any louder about cooking things, I'm pretty sure the screen on my tv will break.
I accidentally watched Batman Forever the other day, and I have great news. Basically everyone on this site is just as good, if not dramatically better at writing film dialogue than whoever was hired to write this studio blockbuster. The romantic conversation between batman and Nicole Kidman just made me cringe constantly for 3 minutes.
Season 3 of Locke and Key just came out, so I'll probably watch that soon. Obviously I have to watch all 8 seasons of GOT also, since House of the Dragon comes out in a couple of weeks.
I'm probably a sucker for dysfunctional family stories
I'm probably a sucker for dysfunctional family stories
My wife and I checked it out not too long ago. We both found it so offensive we turned it off. See, that's the beauty of a free society; if you don't like something, just turn it off. The 1st amendment lives on.
Last edited:
I'm not watching anything. Now that Better Call Saul is over, I have nothing.... My life is empty. 
Last edited:
So what did you think of the finale? I was surprised that no one mentioned it yet.
The finale of The Rehearsal is on tonight, I'm psychedI'm not watching anything. Now that Better Call Saul is over, I have nothing.... My life is empty.
Better Call Saul took me like a day to wrap my head around the finale, and i guess i sorta get it, but ultimately it still feels like one of those moral endings that studios have been demanding for the past hundred years. gotta have all the bad people held accountable, etc cant get away with crime, etc
Last edited:
Nate, I didn't like it
. It was poetic and just, but I was so use to the writers coming up with incredible, hard to predict twists and turns that I felt they took the easy way out. I guess the moral had to be enforced; crime does not pay,,, but it would have been cool if Saul and Kim ended up together, 30 years from now pulling harmless cons at the retirement village they would have eventually moved into. A lot of Better Call Saul was over the top so why not have an ending that, although not noble, would leave us with a smile on our faces?
Nate, I didn't like it
Yes instead of the normal trite garbage how about something like.. he gets away with it and then mocks the legal system in the US, how he only needs to fool 1 out of 12 people and most people are idiots, that the jury system is ridiculous expecting fools to come in and be sharp enough to outwit him. that juriors should be a legal profession you need to go to law school for and how easy it is to get away with crime in america.
To me, it seemed contrived and unrealistic for him to get that deal, and then basically stage a dramatic public suicide. It was out of character for him, and on the emotional payoff level, I feel like there were ways to do this that would have had a more lasting impact on viewers.Nate, I didn't like it
Watching Jessie drive away, finally free at the end of BB, felt a lot more like closure. Saul was never a responsible character, so for him to suddenly take full responsibility and throw himself off a cliff just didn't make sense.
Well, if this follows the existing pattern, I'm looking forward to a 9 season spin off about Hule.
Last edited:
I screwed up. The quote from sfoster (above) was supposed to be a quote from Nate North (below)
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.. Who knows. They might do that... Actually I think fans are clamoring for a spin off about Gustavo Fring, Don Eladio, and the Salamancos.. I like that idea but I've grown to love the actors in those roles and don't know how well it would play with new faces.
Last edited:
Professional jurors. Hmm. I think that just lead to a new group of corrupt people with no ethics, kind of like 95% of everyone in government (and probably the supreme court). I think jurors should have to pass a psych exam along, a civics test, and a a background check. In other words. There won't be any jurors any more. LOL. We could make it a Cash out system. If you commit a crime and can pay the crime fee, you go free. So, if you commit murder and you are rich, you pay 6 million dollars then walk out, free as a bird. If you don't have the money, you are guilty and you go to prison, sort of like it is now except without the pretense of having a real legal system.
How is a professional juror any different than a professional judge?
The point is that we expect undereducated people with 0 understanding of the law to interpt and judge others on laws they may have broken
As long is it's a decent paying job there would be plenty of lawyers that would elect to sign up.
My interpretation of the end of saul was that he realized that he couldn't stop himself, i mean he was about to rob a guy with cancer, i think in the end he saw kim confess and then that guilted him into confessing too, and he put himself into jail bc otherwise he would keep up his old ways. i think that's what they were going for, but yeah it didn't seem in-character to me either and took me like a day just to wrap my head around what vince was aiming for
For whatever it's (not) worth, jurors aren't expected to understand the law and are only supposed to determine the facts of what happened.
I'll keep it minimal about the courts and juries, but 2 observations
1. about the courts in general. When you people to purchase different "grades of justice" there is no actual justice. This is legacy thinking from a primitive age.
2. about the juries. When everybody gets to decide, results are typically terrible, but when no one has a say, it's even worse. From what I understand, federal courts don't have juries, and it's a 98% conviction rate, might be wrong about this. Point is, you don't want courts where innocent people go in and are just doomed from day one. Juries make mistakes all the time, but you don't want a machine where anyone accused of a crime is automatically convicted.
"Studies estimate that between 4-6% of people incarcerated in US prisons are actually innocent. If 5% of individuals are actually innocent, that means 1/20 criminal cases result in a wrongful conviction. Feb 1, 2022"
as far as professional juries, I think you're exactly right. It would turn out really bad. They would become desensitized within a year, and I think that's why we need random juries, so they aren't processing life sentences like a DMV worker.
1. about the courts in general. When you people to purchase different "grades of justice" there is no actual justice. This is legacy thinking from a primitive age.
2. about the juries. When everybody gets to decide, results are typically terrible, but when no one has a say, it's even worse. From what I understand, federal courts don't have juries, and it's a 98% conviction rate, might be wrong about this. Point is, you don't want courts where innocent people go in and are just doomed from day one. Juries make mistakes all the time, but you don't want a machine where anyone accused of a crime is automatically convicted.
"Studies estimate that between 4-6% of people incarcerated in US prisons are actually innocent. If 5% of individuals are actually innocent, that means 1/20 criminal cases result in a wrongful conviction. Feb 1, 2022"
as far as professional juries, I think you're exactly right. It would turn out really bad. They would become desensitized within a year, and I think that's why we need random juries, so they aren't processing life sentences like a DMV worker.
Federal courts DO have juries at the trial level and of course grand juries.
One of the biggest reasons (but certainly not the ONLY reason) why innocent people are convicted is because those who are accused of a crime are pressured to take a plea bargain. And if you don't have a great lawyer (yup $$$$$) then it can be a long shot to win an acquittal.
Another big reason for the conviction of innocent people is that witness identification is crap/often meaningless but still commonly used.
One of the biggest reasons (but certainly not the ONLY reason) why innocent people are convicted is because those who are accused of a crime are pressured to take a plea bargain. And if you don't have a great lawyer (yup $$$$$) then it can be a long shot to win an acquittal.
Another big reason for the conviction of innocent people is that witness identification is crap/often meaningless but still commonly used.
I'm sure you're correct. I heard that somewhere and it was unverified.
The plea bargain system is indeed a major problem. People aren't smart enough not to abuse it, so abuse is the norm. Typically, a prosecutor tries to blow up the charges until they are way too severe for the crime. Then they scare the person with that to try to force an instant confession. It's the rule rather than the exception. The logic seems to be that every person accused is guilty, and therefore is not owed any form of honesty or fair treatment. They are not applying high pressure tactics to a citizen, that would be wrong, they are applying them to a criminal, who they already see as guilty and just needs to be forced to confess ASAP to keep the wheels rolling.
edit, I tracked down where I got the information wrong. It's actually a 99.8% conviction rate, and 1.6% ever get to a jury trial. I guess with that conviction rate, virtually everyone just takes the plea bargain without a thought.
The plea bargain system is indeed a major problem. People aren't smart enough not to abuse it, so abuse is the norm. Typically, a prosecutor tries to blow up the charges until they are way too severe for the crime. Then they scare the person with that to try to force an instant confession. It's the rule rather than the exception. The logic seems to be that every person accused is guilty, and therefore is not owed any form of honesty or fair treatment. They are not applying high pressure tactics to a citizen, that would be wrong, they are applying them to a criminal, who they already see as guilty and just needs to be forced to confess ASAP to keep the wheels rolling.
edit, I tracked down where I got the information wrong. It's actually a 99.8% conviction rate, and 1.6% ever get to a jury trial. I guess with that conviction rate, virtually everyone just takes the plea bargain without a thought.
Last edited:
also, on a whim, I typed Huell into youtube, and this came up amongst the results.
House o' Dragon has been great so far but with the show runners splitting up, this does not bode well.
Rings o' Power has black hobbit saying "this does not bode well" whom i now refer to as decard kain (dialbo reference)
the casting director did an awesome job, lady hibbit and lady elf are both absoutely top notch performers, guy elf is great too and so is meteorite wizard. I was really concerned after episode 1 that sauron is no longer a deciever and immediately framed as a villian, but I hope and suspect that he has an alternate identity and will still do some decieving.
Rings o' Power has black hobbit saying "this does not bode well" whom i now refer to as decard kain (dialbo reference)
the casting director did an awesome job, lady hibbit and lady elf are both absoutely top notch performers, guy elf is great too and so is meteorite wizard. I was really concerned after episode 1 that sauron is no longer a deciever and immediately framed as a villian, but I hope and suspect that he has an alternate identity and will still do some decieving.