You’re right of course. Always appreciate your insights.
A more nuanced story could have been for Charlie to be sympathetic toward the women because their cause had been just (with a different background story). This one feeds the myth that extreme direct action AGAINST totalitarianism is just as evil as totalitarianism.
Yeah, "The Time of the Monkey" kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like ultimately, I get it, we have to paint Irene and Joyce in a bad light in some way so that Charlie is justified in taking them down. But they were righteous in their thoughts, if not actions. It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that 70's leftist protesters, even very radical ones, would think that blowing up a Model U.N. would somehow affect major change in any meaningful way. I also don't like the idea that anti-fascist action is portrayed as just as evil as fascism.
Related to Dear Edward , Stephen Colbert had Connie Britton on last night . Stephen’s father and siblings had died in a plane crash in the 70s . I wonder if he knew the subject of the show before she was booked. Was Connie Britton aware of Stephen’s history. Would have been interesting to hear his thoughts, especially since Alan says they went overboard on the topic.
Your "Bear" reason for dropping the entire season answers my question of why Hulu gave us all 8 eps at once of the new "Extraordinary" (very good) but is only giving us one ep of the familiar "How I Met Your Father" (not very good) per week.
It was an editorial decision to make them more standard with the style of RS's other recaps. Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised they let me keep the gimmick going for as long as they did. But it lives on here at the top of every newsletter!
There were two episodes of TV that come to mind that gave me that immediate feeling of, 'what did I just watch-- and I wonder if everyone feels the same?'
First time seeing Mad Men's "The Suitcase" and Westworld's "Kiksuya" episodes. I was floored.
Re: Poker Face episode 5 - Why did progressives like Johnson, Lyonne, et al, choose to frame a story with “the left is just as bad as the right” message. Many who planned direct actions in the 60s and 70s were principled and often misguided and most if not all have expressed tremendous regret for any lives lost or harmed. To create 2 colorful monsters with no consciences left a very bad taste.
I think the issue is that, for good or for ill, the throwback nature of the series means that the bad guys have to be B-A-D bad. There's no room for Charlie to feel conflicted about whether to bust them for killing people. So Joyce and Irene had to ultimately be too extreme, and too unconcerned with collateral damage either in the past or the present.
Yeah, I agree it was problematic. To paraphrase my other comment, it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like ultimately, I get it, we have to paint Irene and Joyce in a bad light in some way so that Charlie is justified in taking them down. But they were righteous in their thoughts, if not actions. It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that 70's leftist protesters, even very radical ones, would think that blowing up a Model U.N. would somehow affect major change in any meaningful way. I also don't like the idea that anti-fascist action is portrayed as just as evil as fascism.
Yeah, this was my reasoning for it as well.. I also don’t see Charlie as getting chummy with the FBI. The script seemed to gesture towards that, but didn’t want to commit too hard either way.
Sorry for necro-posting, but I just watched this episode and had to add a +1 to this thread. Irene and Joyce being capital V villains is one (thoroughly reactionary) thing, but having Charlie say out loud "and that's why the cops were justified in shotgun-blasting an unarmed, fleeing woman in the spine" is quite another.
Process question: Can you pick up the phone and interview Offerman about his performance in this epi, or does protocol require you to go through producers/studio/HBO?
Now that I'm all caught up on Poker Face I can finally go back and read some of the stuff you wrote about it.
Also, yeah, I agree that binging can totally feel like homework. But I also find it sad that what it does is to give every show such a short shelf-life. To produce a whole season of a show, to then have it seen by someone in two days and no longer talk about it a few weeks down the line is so heartbreaking.
We used to long for new seasons of our favorite shows. Now, when a new season of a favorite show starts, I don't even feel like it was gone for this long because there were so many stops along the way. So many "TV one night stands" or whatever. And while it's nice that there's always something a click away, it also does kill some of the magic.
No word from Gunn and co. about the future of Harley Quinn, right? Its 4th season is a sure thing at this point, but I wonder what comes after.
Oh, and since we're discussing things that are weird about Poker Face (which I'm thoroughly enjoying so far) why is she still using her real name wherever she goes?
As a DC person before Spiderman existed, I enjoyed Batman:The Animated Series universe of shows and watched them with my son who then turned to X-Men comics in the 1990s. He told me to watch what became my favorite episode in that extended universe: "The Greatest Story Never Told" in the Justice League Unlimited series and it featured Booster Gold. As you said, he was used as comic relief with the premise being that he was on crowd control as Batman and the Justice League A-Team fought the big bad off screen. My guess would be that that might be the template for a Booster Gold project.
As to departure episodes, always liked the Doctor Who reference to Doctor-lite episodes like one of the best in the series, Blink. The rationale was that given the CGI and pyrotechnics in the big splashy episodes they'd save money on the departure episodes. The constraints often brought out the best in the writers.
That episode was stunning stuff. I didn't know Nick was going to be in Last of Us, so that was a delightful surprise. I couldn't have imagined how beautifully his story played out. What a love story
Having not watched The White Lotus, I'm unfamiliar with Murray Bartlett. I hope when he writes his autobiography, he calls it "Let Bartlett be Bartlett".
That could be the title of the chapter where he moves from Australia to America. (And he'd been working a lot here pre-White Lotus, including in HBO's "Looking" and Showtime's "Tales of the City" sequel.)
It was a great episode. But how soon is too soon for a Departure episode? If it introduced Desmond Hume as a new recurring character, that's one thing. But to spend most of the time introducing and then saying goodbye to two new characters in Episode 3 seems a little premature.
I think it works as episode 3 in the sense that it hammers home the idea of how fleeting everything (even people) are in the post-apocalyptic infected-flecked world. There are so many existential threats in The Last of Us world (from the obvious infected, FEDRA, human marauders without morals trying to survive, to the less obvious, like diseases or semi-minor wounds that we could heal in the pre-infected world easily in a hospital or long-term debilitating diseases like the one that was slowly taking down Frank) that Joel and Ellie can never depend on anything to be where they think it will be or stay where they think it was. Everything is ephemeral and fleeting, even moreso than our current world. It seems like Bill and Frank were a mainstay outpost that Joel and Tess could rely upon for years and years and even they're gone now. It definitely underscores Joel's point that all he has is family in this world IMO.
It was a...fine, but flawed episode? I feel like there's no in between about it. I can't say I had some problems with it without being labeled a homophobe.
I suspect that some of the rapturous reception it got was a preemptive response to anticipated attacks by reactionary critics.
I think you can say you had issues with the episode without being labeled a homophobe as long as the issues are something besides "I didn't like seeing a gay relationship portrayed in this show because I don't like gay people". What were your issues?
Question for Alan or anyone who's seen Last of Us: I don't have much interest in watching an apocalyptic zombie (or zombie-adjacent) show, and my wife has even less interest. But is it worth watching this episode as a standalone just to experience what might be the best episode of the decade?? I guess if it's truly a "departure" not having watched the first two episodes wouldn't be that big of a deal?
You could, yes. There's a decent amount of material with the show's two main characters at the start and end of episode, but nothing you won't be able to follow. And the bulk of it is self-contained.
Watched it over the weekend and yes it was definitely rewarding without having watched the first two episodes or playing the game. I was able to fill in the missing pieces pretty easily, and Bill and Frank's journey was heart wrenching on its own.
Best “departure” episode for me, outside Leftovers, was “LCD Soundsystem” in season two of the sadly forgotten/underrated “You’re the Worst”
https://uproxx.com/sepinwall/review-youre-the-worst-lcd-soundsystem-meet-the-neighbors/
You’re right of course. Always appreciate your insights.
A more nuanced story could have been for Charlie to be sympathetic toward the women because their cause had been just (with a different background story). This one feeds the myth that extreme direct action AGAINST totalitarianism is just as evil as totalitarianism.
Yeah, "The Time of the Monkey" kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like ultimately, I get it, we have to paint Irene and Joyce in a bad light in some way so that Charlie is justified in taking them down. But they were righteous in their thoughts, if not actions. It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that 70's leftist protesters, even very radical ones, would think that blowing up a Model U.N. would somehow affect major change in any meaningful way. I also don't like the idea that anti-fascist action is portrayed as just as evil as fascism.
Related to Dear Edward , Stephen Colbert had Connie Britton on last night . Stephen’s father and siblings had died in a plane crash in the 70s . I wonder if he knew the subject of the show before she was booked. Was Connie Britton aware of Stephen’s history. Would have been interesting to hear his thoughts, especially since Alan says they went overboard on the topic.
Your "Bear" reason for dropping the entire season answers my question of why Hulu gave us all 8 eps at once of the new "Extraordinary" (very good) but is only giving us one ep of the familiar "How I Met Your Father" (not very good) per week.
I just noticed for this last week's recap of "The Last of Us", curious why you're not starting them off with your signature 'as soon as'?
It was an editorial decision to make them more standard with the style of RS's other recaps. Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised they let me keep the gimmick going for as long as they did. But it lives on here at the top of every newsletter!
There were two episodes of TV that come to mind that gave me that immediate feeling of, 'what did I just watch-- and I wonder if everyone feels the same?'
First time seeing Mad Men's "The Suitcase" and Westworld's "Kiksuya" episodes. I was floored.
Re: Poker Face episode 5 - Why did progressives like Johnson, Lyonne, et al, choose to frame a story with “the left is just as bad as the right” message. Many who planned direct actions in the 60s and 70s were principled and often misguided and most if not all have expressed tremendous regret for any lives lost or harmed. To create 2 colorful monsters with no consciences left a very bad taste.
I think the issue is that, for good or for ill, the throwback nature of the series means that the bad guys have to be B-A-D bad. There's no room for Charlie to feel conflicted about whether to bust them for killing people. So Joyce and Irene had to ultimately be too extreme, and too unconcerned with collateral damage either in the past or the present.
Yeah, I agree it was problematic. To paraphrase my other comment, it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth. Like ultimately, I get it, we have to paint Irene and Joyce in a bad light in some way so that Charlie is justified in taking them down. But they were righteous in their thoughts, if not actions. It's a bit of a stretch for me to believe that 70's leftist protesters, even very radical ones, would think that blowing up a Model U.N. would somehow affect major change in any meaningful way. I also don't like the idea that anti-fascist action is portrayed as just as evil as fascism.
Yeah, this was my reasoning for it as well.. I also don’t see Charlie as getting chummy with the FBI. The script seemed to gesture towards that, but didn’t want to commit too hard either way.
I don’t know why my name is deleted. It’s Nomi S.
Sorry for necro-posting, but I just watched this episode and had to add a +1 to this thread. Irene and Joyce being capital V villains is one (thoroughly reactionary) thing, but having Charlie say out loud "and that's why the cops were justified in shotgun-blasting an unarmed, fleeing woman in the spine" is quite another.
Process question: Can you pick up the phone and interview Offerman about his performance in this epi, or does protocol require you to go through producers/studio/HBO?
Now that I'm all caught up on Poker Face I can finally go back and read some of the stuff you wrote about it.
Also, yeah, I agree that binging can totally feel like homework. But I also find it sad that what it does is to give every show such a short shelf-life. To produce a whole season of a show, to then have it seen by someone in two days and no longer talk about it a few weeks down the line is so heartbreaking.
We used to long for new seasons of our favorite shows. Now, when a new season of a favorite show starts, I don't even feel like it was gone for this long because there were so many stops along the way. So many "TV one night stands" or whatever. And while it's nice that there's always something a click away, it also does kill some of the magic.
No word from Gunn and co. about the future of Harley Quinn, right? Its 4th season is a sure thing at this point, but I wonder what comes after.
Oh, and since we're discussing things that are weird about Poker Face (which I'm thoroughly enjoying so far) why is she still using her real name wherever she goes?
As a DC person before Spiderman existed, I enjoyed Batman:The Animated Series universe of shows and watched them with my son who then turned to X-Men comics in the 1990s. He told me to watch what became my favorite episode in that extended universe: "The Greatest Story Never Told" in the Justice League Unlimited series and it featured Booster Gold. As you said, he was used as comic relief with the premise being that he was on crowd control as Batman and the Justice League A-Team fought the big bad off screen. My guess would be that that might be the template for a Booster Gold project.
As to departure episodes, always liked the Doctor Who reference to Doctor-lite episodes like one of the best in the series, Blink. The rationale was that given the CGI and pyrotechnics in the big splashy episodes they'd save money on the departure episodes. The constraints often brought out the best in the writers.
Viva Offerman and Bartlett! Indeed
That episode was stunning stuff. I didn't know Nick was going to be in Last of Us, so that was a delightful surprise. I couldn't have imagined how beautifully his story played out. What a love story
Having not watched The White Lotus, I'm unfamiliar with Murray Bartlett. I hope when he writes his autobiography, he calls it "Let Bartlett be Bartlett".
Or "Bartlett for America"
That could be the title of the chapter where he moves from Australia to America. (And he'd been working a lot here pre-White Lotus, including in HBO's "Looking" and Showtime's "Tales of the City" sequel.)
As Alan already mentioned, I highly recommend HBO's "Looking", Bartlett is great in it! That's the first time I can remember seeing him on my screen.
It was a great episode. But how soon is too soon for a Departure episode? If it introduced Desmond Hume as a new recurring character, that's one thing. But to spend most of the time introducing and then saying goodbye to two new characters in Episode 3 seems a little premature.
I think it works as episode 3 in the sense that it hammers home the idea of how fleeting everything (even people) are in the post-apocalyptic infected-flecked world. There are so many existential threats in The Last of Us world (from the obvious infected, FEDRA, human marauders without morals trying to survive, to the less obvious, like diseases or semi-minor wounds that we could heal in the pre-infected world easily in a hospital or long-term debilitating diseases like the one that was slowly taking down Frank) that Joel and Ellie can never depend on anything to be where they think it will be or stay where they think it was. Everything is ephemeral and fleeting, even moreso than our current world. It seems like Bill and Frank were a mainstay outpost that Joel and Tess could rely upon for years and years and even they're gone now. It definitely underscores Joel's point that all he has is family in this world IMO.
It was a...fine, but flawed episode? I feel like there's no in between about it. I can't say I had some problems with it without being labeled a homophobe.
I suspect that some of the rapturous reception it got was a preemptive response to anticipated attacks by reactionary critics.
Hope this makes sense...
I think you can say you had issues with the episode without being labeled a homophobe as long as the issues are something besides "I didn't like seeing a gay relationship portrayed in this show because I don't like gay people". What were your issues?
Question for Alan or anyone who's seen Last of Us: I don't have much interest in watching an apocalyptic zombie (or zombie-adjacent) show, and my wife has even less interest. But is it worth watching this episode as a standalone just to experience what might be the best episode of the decade?? I guess if it's truly a "departure" not having watched the first two episodes wouldn't be that big of a deal?
You could, yes. There's a decent amount of material with the show's two main characters at the start and end of episode, but nothing you won't be able to follow. And the bulk of it is self-contained.
Watched it over the weekend and yes it was definitely rewarding without having watched the first two episodes or playing the game. I was able to fill in the missing pieces pretty easily, and Bill and Frank's journey was heart wrenching on its own.
Thank you!
When you need to soundtrack beautiful emotional/heartbreaking stuff, it's Max Richter time.