|
Stringers problem was that he wasn't half as smart as he thought he was. He had a shallow view of things. His community college gave him the airs of a businessman but he didn't really understand business, he just knew some buzzwords and a few simple concepts, thats why proper businessmen were able to run rings around him. He is the poster child for the saying "A little knowledge can be dangerous", that little bit of knowledge had him involved in things he didn't really understand. He also had a shallow view of the street. Sure, he didn't get where he was by not having some street smarts but once again he didn't really understand the street the way Avon or Marlo did. Had Avon remained in jail leaving Stringer to deal with the rise of Marlo, I suspect Stringer would not have been able to handle Marlo in any shape or fashion.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Stringer was smart but naive about the business and political worlds in the same way most us would be unless born into it. A friend of mine used to say there are meat eaters, omnivores, and prey. Avon and Marlo were meat eaters, they want to stick to the jungle they know. Stringer was a wide ranging omnivore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
I don't pay any mind to the addicted or neglectful or absent parents but Namonds mom actively forcing him to sell drugs and go to jail is just making me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
If I had the ability to draw aesthetically pleasing stuff, I'd make a comic series about the adventures of Ziggy and Avon in Prisonland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:I don't pay any mind to the addicted or neglectful or absent parents but Namonds mom actively forcing him to sell drugs and go to jail is just making me She is one of the few characters who I'd say is a downright awful person with no caveats or glimpses of humanity. I got so angry whenever she was talking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:She is one of the few characters who I'd say is a downright awful person with no caveats or glimpses of humanity. I got so angry whenever she was talking. Her, Snoop, Marlo, maybe Cheese come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
gingerberger posted:Her, Snoop, Marlo, maybe Cheese come to mind. Now, now, Snoop was responsible for the scenes where she bought the nailgun, as well as her response to drive-by shootings. She can't have been completely irredeemable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:Now, now, Snoop was responsible for the scenes where she bought the nailgun, as well as her response to drive-by shootings. She can't have been completely irredeemable. I've seen the nailgun scene a bunch of times over the years just by being on the internet and always assumed she was a bigger character. I'm kind of disappointed all she does is tag along.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Yeah, she's not Chris, but she completely owns the scenes she's in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
nuzak posted:Yeah, she's not Chris, but she completely owns the scenes she's in. I think when you know her actual background it's even scarier. While Snoop was an exaggeration, she was a hitter years before The Wire. In fact, she shot a girl down and the girl's mom was pissed that Snoop had the role she did because the mom felt it promoted Snoop's actions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
RichardDunn posted:^^ Could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Barksdale organization pretty much has a monopoly on the drug trade in that whole area. Not like those junkies are gonna hop in their car they don't have and drive to the next city, they really don't have a choice. Wasn't the migration of users across the bridge to Joe's territory when Barksdale product was too diluted a plot point somewhere in the show? thathonkey posted:PS. This is why the notion of selling 99% pure meth in Breaking Bad is wholly unrealistic for a bunch of reasons. Meth is up to 80% pure in some areas. It's not the same as heroin, anything smoked instead of injected is going to be a lot harder to overdose on quickly. Anyway, obviously Breaking Bad and The Wire are trying to do different things so I wouldn't compare their handling of the realities of the drug trade. Basebf555 posted:I think part of it was also to demonstrate how the streets just keep getting worse and worse, and the anger, bitterness, and emptiness people feel is being concentrated inside them much more quickly and dangerously. Twenty years ago when Omar was Kenard's age nobody really had to worry about 9-year olds shooting people in the back of the head. This is kind of a cheat though -- the brutality of the drug trade has never again come close to where it was 25 years ago during the crack era. Even though the plotline of the Wire was sketched out 10+ years ago at this point, Simon already knew that this was disingenuous when the show started.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:
Yea from what I've read and heard about in criminal justice classes you're mostly correct, though I wasn't really referring to the drug trade, but more the disintegration of these communities and the effect its having on the kids that grow up in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Wasn't the migration of users across the bridge to Joe's territory when Barksdale product was too diluted a plot point somewhere in the show? Yes. Though in the first season, Stringer comments that "but poo poo is weak all over" or something similar
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Wasn't the migration of users across the bridge to Joe's territory when Barksdale product was too diluted a plot point somewhere in Correct. This was a big plot point in season 2. I was only on season 1 at the time I posted that. It's been so long since I've watched The Wire that this is practically like first viewing. I should probably finish the series before jumping into a discussion. I do have a s2 question that I somehow missed. What is with Valchek's big hard-on for catching Frank? The only thing I can remember is the stained glass church window. That would be hilariously ridiculous if all the poo poo that happened in S2 was because Frank got a better window than Valcheck. lol That pissed me off so much when Daniels and co. were explaining about going after Spiros and Greek and all Valchek says is "What about Sobotka?? I didn't hear Sobotka's name!!!!" Ugh I wanted to punch him. Thanks Prez!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
RichardDunn posted:I do have a s2 question that I somehow missed. What is with Valchek's big hard-on for catching Frank? The only thing I can remember is the stained glass church window. That would be hilariously ridiculous if all the poo poo that happened in S2 was because Frank got a better window than Valcheck. lol I think there was a bit of an ongoing rivalry/petty war going on between them before that, but the window was the straw that broke the camel's back. And the spy van thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
RichardDunn posted:I do have a s2 question that I somehow missed. What is with Valchek's big hard-on for catching Frank? The only thing I can remember is the stained glass church window. That would be hilariously ridiculous if all the poo poo that happened in S2 was because Frank got a better window than Valcheck. lol I read that scene as them having some vague grudge against one another. Probably from some past, similarly small-time bullshit. I forget, does Valchek recognize the name Sobotka when he hears it? Or does he have to look him up. Either way I don't think there's any real evidence of a longstanding grudge from the text of the show. It could also be some beef Valchek has with longshoremen in general, maybe from some past case, and he decides to take it out on the current union head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I think there was a bit of an ongoing rivalry/petty war going on between them before that, but the window was the straw that broke the camel's back. And the spy van thing. Yeah, it's implied that this isn't the first time that Sobotka has done something to bug Valchek, but basically the whole thing happened because Valchek's a piece of poo poo who used his position to punish a guy he had a personal grudge against. As it happened, he was accidentally right that Sobotka was into some shady poo poo, but as that "what about Sobotka??" scene showed, he didn't really care about it, he just wanted to find something, anything, to gently caress over Sobotka. So yeah, it pretty much all happens because of a window 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think part of it was also to demonstrate how the streets just keep getting worse and worse, and the anger, bitterness, and emptiness people feel is being concentrated inside them much more quickly and dangerously. Twenty years ago when Omar was Kenard's age nobody really had to worry about 9-year olds shooting people in the back of the head. This can really be seen in Bunk's anger at Omar for helping to create this new world where murder is just another tool to be used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
To me it seemed very much like Valchek and Frank grew up in the same neighbourhood. Frank even refers to him as "Charlie Valchek's little pissant brother" so he obviously knows him as more than just a police officer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
MrBling posted:To me it seemed very much like Valchek and Frank grew up in the same neighbourhood. Frank even refers to him as "Charlie Valchek's little pissant brother" so he obviously knows him as more than just a police officer. And he says that no girls would dance with him at CYO dances. The basic implication is, Frank was a cool kid growing up and Valchek was a little virginal dweeb. The problem started with the stained glass window, and then Frank's reaction -- to basically yank the now-successful, now-respected police Major out of his adulthood right back to his geeky adolescence -- was what put Frank over the edge and got him to demand a detail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
RichardDunn posted:That would be hilariously ridiculous if all the poo poo that happened in S2 was because Frank got a better window than Valcheck. As much as other things led into their "rivalry" part of what I loved about s2 is THAT the only reason the investigation happens is the window. Sure he's surprised Frank had that much money, but what Valcheck cared about was the window and his pride
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
I just started S5E1 and I have to say looking back that S2 is tentatively my favorite. I can't say for sure until I finish but I doubt S5 will be better. And the intro song. I can say for sure that S2 intro is the best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Rile the thread by proclaiming season 5 as your favourite. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Im nearing the end of season 5 after about five years since I last saw it. My residual memories were that it was an lopsided, contrived piece of poo poo. Im now working at a paper much like the Sun and it does resonate a bit more. I know how easy it would be for a reporter like Templeton to slowly start doctoring quotes, then fabricating facts and influencing the story. Its like how a serial killer gradually becomes more ambitious in deceit before he peaks and kills. Only a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
I just finished a rewatch of five myself. By any metric it's a good conclusion to a series. Like the rest of the seasons, there's a lot more to it than you think there is on a first viewing, which is always a good sign--all the pieces still matter. And it's a solid send-off to the characters. No argument. What still needles me about it is exactly what you pointed out: it feels contrived in a way that the other seasons didn't. That isn't to say that there aren't contrivances in the other seasons--a pretty drat big one in season three, for sure, and even parts of four, which sometimes moralizes more than it should--but in five, it feels like the story is driving the characters instead of the other way around. This is when The Wire is at its weakest. For comparison's sake, let's look at season two. The two catalysts of the docks investigation are characters being assholes: McNulty pinning the dead girl on Baltimore by using the tidal maps, and Valchek abusing his power because he got upstaged by Sobotka. They're the kind of low-grade rear end in a top hat maneuvers that seem realistic because they are; people do that kind of poo poo all the time, and from those minor actions, the story gets to explore a theme using the characters to do it: we see the Sobotkas (and the rest of the union) deal with the kind of financially unstable, paycheck-to-paycheck life that the majority of Americans have to deal with. There's a little bit of moralizing (e.g., Frank's "We used to build poo poo in this country" line that's a little too on-the-nose), but for the most part, the season makes its case without being direct about it. The themes arise organically from the story. Season five has a point. It's written to have a point, and it isn't particularly subtle about it. Hell, Bunk baldly drops that point in the first five minutes of the season: the bigger the lie, the more they believe. So the season starts off being about something--the perpetuation of those lies--and uses the characters to explore it. NcNulty and Lester do something that, while not entirely out of character, feels forced and unearned. We get Templeton, whose only reason for lying is that he wants a better job--a particularly shallow bit of characterization for a show that made us sympathize with a murderers and drug dealers. And that's the problem, I think. The characters in this season actually feel like characters and not people. They're written to push a story that pushes an agenda. But again, there's a lot to the fifth season that's good. Great, even. It has some individual scenes that are up with the best in the series, and the final episode is exactly the kind of pitch-perfect non-ending that the show needed. And the themes it does explore are certainly worth exploring. It just could've been handled a little more deftly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
I'm not so sure Templeton fabricated stories just for career advancement purposes as much as it seemed the only way to ensure he would have a career in journalism at all given the ongoing consolidation of ownership and shutting down desks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
I enjoyed all the seasons but Two was my favorite. But then I've only watched it once. I think Two resonated with me because of the blue collar aspect. I can't really relate to street kids, dope dealers, cops, politicians, or journalists; but I can to blue collar workers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I'm not so sure Templeton fabricated stories just for career advancement purposes as much as it seemed the only way to ensure he would have a career in journalism at all given the ongoing consolidation of ownership and shutting down desks. I think you're right on there. Templeton makes a lot of noise about advancing to the Post or the Times, but he's also operating in a system where people are getting clipped left and right for no discernible reason. That's not to say his fabrications are easy to forgive; the vast majority of reporters I've known are in the Alma mold, who wouldn't dare betray the readers by making poo poo up. I could totally see Season 5 as being someone's favorite, especially if they've worked in news media. The characters at the paper are not well-developed, but the archetypes ring really true. The out-of-touch managing editors, the navel-gazing line editors, the know-it-all copy editors, the well-meaning but green rookie reporters, all these people are drawn right from real newsrooms. I imagine teachers could see their own archetypes in Season 4 with Prez being super naive and the veterans being burned out and the researchers starting the season looking in all the wrong places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:I just finished a rewatch of five myself. Nice recap of what made season two so enjoyable. I think you're forgetting one rear end in a top hat move that drove the plot. The murders of the girls in the can! That only happened because one guy wanted to get laid and then got scared about the consequences. Very human reaction... If still inhumanly cruel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:I'm not so sure Templeton fabricated stories just for career advancement purposes as much as it seemed the only way to ensure he would have a career in journalism at all given the ongoing consolidation of ownership and shutting down desks. That's true. And now that I think about it, I can see Templeton as season five's analog to Frank: both of them are trapped in an occupation that's dying out. But while Frank did underhanded poo poo to benefit the union (and was killed for it), Templeton's actions only benefited himself (and he came out ahead). It's a neat parallel, but we don't really see enough of Templeton to feel anything for him except contempt, which is a strange thing for such a major character in a final season. PostNouveau posted:I could totally see Season 5 as being someone's favorite, especially if they've worked in news media. The characters at the paper are not well-developed, but the archetypes ring really true. The out-of-touch managing editors, the navel-gazing line editors, the know-it-all copy editors, the well-meaning but green rookie reporters, all these people are drawn right from real newsrooms. You're right. My (admittedly nit-picking) issue is that those characters aren't really developed beyond being archetypes. Which is weird, because the show's full of archetypes (McNulty's the loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules; Fremon's the older, wiser mentor; Burrell is the out-of-touch boss). The characters at the Sun would be good--hell, great, even--in any other show, but for The Wire they have a surprising lack of nuance. (Edit): If I had to give reasons as to why that is, I'd say a) the shortened season, and b) Simon's closeness to the topic, I think, made him a little myopic. Asbury fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I think the newsteam play too small a role in the season to get the chance to develop, and the shorter season length didn't help. Look at seasons 2, 3 and 4. The port plotline in season 2 was pretty much the main storyline, and the drug trade plot was put on the backburner. Carcetti's plot in season 3 didn't get as much screentime, but it was a small enough story (two or three central characters at most) that what was there got developed the gently caress out of. Then the school in season 4 was both integral to the immediate drug trade plot (with most of the characters being heavily involved in both stories) and had a shitload of screentime. The newsteam meanwhile just added a bit of flavour to the serial killer and Marlo stories, and wasn't given all that much prominence. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad story or poorly developed, it was just handled in a different way than the sidestories in previous season. I saw it more as a new lens through which to see the story than a major story in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
3Romeo posted:
Well I think you're right at the point which is that the other seasons take archetypes and explore them. McNulty is certainly a type but through his story we get to see the downside to the way he operates, whereas in a lot of other shows McNulty would never really have to deal with consequences. Same with Burrell; he starts as the out-of-touch boss but as time goes on we see more and more what made him that way and the full picture makes every earlier scene all the more interesting when you re-watch the show. None of the characters in the news room really get enough screen time to be explored fully enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:She is one of the few characters who I'd say is a downright awful person with no caveats or glimpses of humanity. I got so angry whenever she was talking. Stephen King called her "perhaps the most terrifying female villain to ever appear in a television series."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
tadashi posted:Stephen King called her "perhaps the most terrifying female villain to ever appear in a television series." I always thought Chris came off as the more terrifying of the 2 by a decent margin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:I always thought Chris came off as the more terrifying of the 2 by a decent margin. I don't know. Chris is chilling in a way, but when it comes down to it he's little more than a gun. A stoic tool that helps keep the status quo. Namond's mum goes out of her way, many times, to make the situation worse for everyone involved for her own short term gain. What's scarier, a guy who would kill for $100, or a mother who would force her child to kill for $100? (Terrible analogy).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Isn't that quote about Snoop not Namonds mom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Hahaha it's way way funnier and more accurate if you pretend its about namond's mom not about snoop. e:vvv i read some of his books and now I feel the same way X-MOTHERFUCKIN-D awesmoe fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Well now I'm just disappointed in Stephen King more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
drunken officeparty posted:Isn't that quote about Snoop not Namonds mom? Correct. He said it because snoop is just so cold. Chris seems like he has an emotional world, he seems like a human (ie beating the poo poo out of dookies dad). Snoop is kind of like Marlo though, just no capacity for empathy. I think her and Marlo are both genuinely sociopaths, snoop just gets her hands dirty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
How my hair look?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 23:08
|
|