Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

Rarity posted:

The thing is it's not like she didn't want to have sex with him, she just didn't want to have sex with him then. So he has the power of deciding whether a second date happens or not and that means she would feel like just being 'gently caress you, I'm out' takes that off the table.

This is pretty ludicrous. The power to decide whether to have a second date is not a 'power' one holds over another person.

For a choice to be coerced/pressured, the constraint/alternate option must be sufficiently damaging that the person has no choice but to comply. 'I won't go out with you again' is a perfectly reasonable option to 'you must have sex with me right now' because it doesn't even begin to constitute harm. It is about as harmful as It is also a legitimate use of 'power', because it is not a 'power', it is a basic freedom: everyone has the right to choose who they pursue or not pursue romantic and sexual relationships with (within legality).

Sorry but if you think 'this person is famous and I want a second date with them' constitutes enough pressure to even begin doubt someone's autonomy over their decisions, you might as well just admit to yourself that you think women should be legally considered children.

Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jan 14, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

precision posted:

it's kind of weird that they didn't give B99 even like a half a final season to wrap things up, just like, as a courtesy

There isn't anything to wrap up. There's no plot and barely any character goal that would be left 'unfinished' if the show ended.

Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:46 on May 11, 2018

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

Mu Zeta posted:

Breaking Bad's ending wasn't that great IMO. It was serviceable and kind of just gives the audience what they expect/want. I guess it wasn't disappointing.

The climax episode was better than almost any finale of anything.

The 'ending' was just a long epilogue. But it worked fine.

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

pahuyuth posted:

I loved Rubicon! It was a slow burner for sure but by the end I really liked how it came together. At least I think I did.. I may just be remembering it in a better light.

I remember it not coming together very well.

For example, there was that widow character who had a fair bit of screentime and then is killed in the finale having achieved almost nothing.

In general, it was obvious that the original showrunner had been let go after the pilot and they made a different show afterwards which didn't entirely make sense when considering how it started.

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

Argue posted:

This isn't specifically about the Community comment above, but I've never understood this criticism towards any show. I've heard it levied at Adventure Time, Community, and Lost, among others. What does this even mean? That they keep trying new things, sometimes to success and sometimes to failure?

Usually it means that the "new things they are trying" are things that appeal to the people making the show, and maybe extending to some members of an extremely devoted fanbase, but that don't really work in conventional narrative, comedic, or dramatic senses. So for anyone who is not 100% in, it fails. There starts to be a lot of self-referential stuff, meta elements, etc.

'Insular' might be a better word for it.

Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Oct 5, 2018

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

howe_sam posted:

Season 5 of The Americans is, for better or worse, entirely setting the table for season 6.

It's for worse.

There's really no reason why the events of Season 4 couldn't have led to the ending of Season 5.

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006
Prequels are about the same main characters as the original work when you can plausibly tell an older story about those characters, and about other characters when you can't. It's not really that complicated.

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

zoux posted:

Cali cartel isn't nearly as interesting as the Mexican drug war from a narrative perspective. The Escobar story had a natural narrative arc, rise - dominance - fall.

They still kinda botched it IMO, regardless of the actual real-life story.

They went too far in making Cali seem non-threatening, the main guy got captured too early and was too delusional and jovial, whereas his brother was too incompetent and weak.

Pacho, who was charismatic, wasn't involved enough in the main plot. Chepe was a completely superfluous character.

The two DEA guys weren't given enough to do either and Peņa didn't really work as a 'boss.'

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pedro De Heredia
May 30, 2006

MiddleOne posted:

Clearly you didn't suffer through Joy in the cinema.
I'm pretty sure your agent is going to tell you to do another movie with the director you've done two popular, successful movies with.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply