MovieChat Forums > Six Feet Under (2001) Discussion > I'm in the middle of season one and...

I'm in the middle of season one and...


(probably around episode 6 or so) and I am wondering whether the show's iconic status is build upon later seasons or what the hype is all about. I mean it's a cool show so far with a lot of cool ideas but I'm not as hyped as most folks. Is it going to change in any way during later seasons? Or is it nostalgia that brings people to state that this is on par with breaking bad and stuff?

No hate! I'm just not sure if I should continue watching or not right now. :)

reply

I think seasons 4+5 are the best.

The later seasons deal a lot deeper with the main cast and their dynamics than the first seasons.

reply

You can't judge this series on the first season, especially in progress. It also took me awhile to get into it but once it catches a hold of you, it doesn't let go. I don't remember exactly that moment in the series when it just "clicked" for me, but I've never binged a show so feverishly ever before.

The series just gets better as you watch it...more enriching and deeper with every episode. You start to understand the characters in more meaningful ways....even as their actions sometimes disappoint or shock you.

In the end, a very rewarding experience for anyone who stays with it.



"The future is tape, videotape, and NOT film?"

reply

I'm sure you have made up your mind by now but I got hooked by the pilot. My advice would be if a person didn't get hooked within the first 6 episodes they never will

reply

Season One is my least favorite. I felt as though each season improved on the flaws of the one before it as the show went on. I didn't think I was going to love the show when I finished Season One. Having seen the whole series, it is now one of my favorite shows of all time.

Season Five will rock your socks off. It's just ridiculous.

If I can't travel freely with my drum of drugs than the terrorists have won.

reply

It's one of my favorite series of all time. However, if I had watched it when I was younger, before I had a family, kids, etc., it might not have affected me as much as it does.

It really makes you think about family, the meaning of life, how short it is, and how much you should appreciate it while you can.

reply

I don't think it means less, but it just means different. I'm far from having a family, a house and a job but this show hitted me pretty hard and made me think about things in a unique way.
Specially the last episodes...

reply

I recently caught an ep from season 2 where a woman who didnt have a single person in her life died....don't forget about that one ha.
Anyway, I've tried to get into the show several times but always give up just because it's depressing and because I cant relate to either of the sons in anyway. They even look alien to me.

reply

I've never understood why "Breaking Bad" is considered so great, especially after repeated viewings. The first time I watched it, I thought it was great, until the last few episodes. Watching it a second time through, I found some of the actors, Anna Gunn and Aaron Paul in particular, to be so annoying I gave up halfway through. My opinion now is that "Breaking Bad" is just average, if you can tolerate the annoying characters, which every show unfortunately has. Then again, I've never understood why "The Wire" was ever considered good at all, and I've tried watching it a few times and can never get past the first season.

On the other hand, I enjoyed "Dexter" through and through (minus the gratingly hollow performances of Jennifer Carpenter and C. S. Lee) as well as "Six Feet Under" (up until the fourth season), but really only because of Michael C. Hall. I actually prefer the early seasons, again because of Hall's character, David. Without giving any spoilers, the writers completely ruined David's character development in a particularly notorious episode of the fourth season, which I personally consider to be the moment the show "jumped the shark." I hated that episode and found David's behaviour and reactions in that episode to be so unrealistic and out-of-character that it ruined the rest of the show for me, even though I continued to watch until the very end, not out of enjoyment, but of a tedious desire to reach the conclusion.

If the show hasn't engaged you within the first few episodes of the second season, you should just quit while you're ahead because it probably won't get any better for you.

reply

the writers completely ruined David's character development in a particularly notorious episode of the fourth season, which I personally consider to be the moment the show "jumped the shark." I hated that episode and found David's behaviour and reactions in that episode to be so unrealistic and out-of-character that it ruined the rest of the show for me
Really? I think it's a fantastic episode. How did you expect David to react? (my tone here isn't aggressive; I'm genuinely just curious - it's interesting how we can interpret characters and situations differently).

For me, the one turn of SFU that bothers me/could be considered a sharp jumping moment is the S4 finale, when Lisa's murderer is revealed to be Hoyt and he shoots himself in the head. It's too OTT and soapy, and the twist doesn't fit with Lisa's character. It doesn't even have any follow up afterwards, so there was no point to it (unlike the David & Jake event, which had obvious and lasting consequences). A very strange decision from the writer's IMO, who rarely get anything wrong.


I’ll be waiting, with a gun and a pack of sandwiches.

reply