if I really want to watch three seasons of a show where the first four episodes have introduced hardly any character that is likable.
I am hoping that the wife turns out to be admirable and not some cagey money/power-grabbing spouse in a nest of cannibalistic children vipers. But still, so far, hardly any character is seemingly good.
If you require that in order for a show to be compelling, I doubt you will.
shareFunny all the ways people invent to be assholes to other people who don't like the same shows as they do, or who are critical or questioning.
shareI wasn't criticizing at all. Someone is asking -- in essence -- should I bother with the rest if there are no good characters. Having watched more than the first 4 eps, I answered. Based on your comment below, I see you hate the show. What a shocker! The only asshole reply here is yours to me.
Stop pretending the OP was offended when it was actually YOU who only wants to hear people rip a show you've obviously, but strangely, watched every minute. Were you waiting for it to change? Or are you another phony who keeps watching something he claims to despise?
I have no idea if the original poster was offended.
>If you require that in order for a show to be compelling
That's just snarky.
And it is also snarky to assume things about me ....
> YOU who only wants to hear people rip a show you've obviously, but strangely, watched every minute.
Maybe you're so obtuse that you don't realize the connotation of your language.
> Or are you another phony who keeps watching something he claims to despise?
What an asshole. You've got major mental problems.
I dub thee asshole and thee comments snarky, but how dare you make assumptions about me!? That's brilliant. Don't confuse reality with what you hear in your head when you read something. Your own bias colored your triggered first reply. And saying "That's just snarky" doesn't make it so, no matter how convenient as hollow support for your weird leap.
And when people stare at an accident, they just happen to be at that place at that time. They don't drive around the block looking at it over and over for 30 hours like you've done watching this show. I guess you don't require likeable characters to find a show a compelling, huh? Why else watch all that creepy and ugly? Whether you realize it or not, you're a fan.
You are trying to equate yourself and me on the basis of information you just make up on the spot, in service of your own defense.
In this case you cannot do that validly.
You began your commentary in a snarky and insulting way, therefore I had something to go on, to comment on and to judge as an impartial observer.
> If you require that in order for a show to be compelling, I doubt you will.
I mean it's brilliant if you think couching unwarranted conceit, condescension, superiority in a snarky insulting way is your one talent in life. It's very Republican of you.
No, you're worse than me b/c you entered "asshole" into this, where, unlike my reply to the OP, there is absolutely no possible misreading or ambiguity. The worst misreading of what I replied to the OP doesn't come close to what you first replied to me. You created a narrative and ignored my answer to your insulting attack. The irony is that you did to me exactly what you claimed I was doing to the OP. You're impartial? My ass. The impartial thing here was my reply to the OP. But despite me not saying a word about my personal views on the show, you created a motivation, and slapped on an insult based on that motivation.
My reply to the OP, with its "If" qualifier, is based ONLY on what the OP said, without a single mention of my taste, b/c unlike you, I know my taste is irrelevant to the OP's question. It was succinct and went to right to the decision point the OP brought up, nothing more, no matter how many more times you claim it's something else.
And Republican now? WTF? Just more weird invention from you.
> My reply to the OP, with its "If" qualifier, is based ONLY on ...
Doesn't matter what it was based on.
Of course. Your only argument is an appeal to your own authority, which makes it fallacious. It amounts to "Yes, you did. Yes, you are. B/c I say so." In the same manner that you now added "very Republican" to it out of the blue. With that last wacky addition, maybe it's you with "major mental problems", huh?
shareDitch the guy. He's just another pompous asshole troll, frustrated with his life of unvalued penning.
shareIt is not that I require likable characters ( thanks for not asking - btw, THAT is snark), I just don't know if I want to invest 25 plus hours where each character is a vile ass and so far, each of these characters are nasty. The sad thing is characters can be both nasty and likable (look at Rip on Yellowstone).
shareThat's not what I said or implied. I took your meaning and didn't suggest at all that you needed a bunch of likeable characters. And I didn't ask b/c it seemed already central to your post -- ie, the emergence of a likeable character as reason for you to continue to watch or not. I wouldn't pose a separate question like "Do you really need a likeable character?" when the "If" that begins my reply does the same, and leaves open the possibility that it's not a decision razor, despite an OP that suggests it is. As to nasty and likeable, well, that's in the eye of the beholder. I've never watched Yellowstone, so I can't comment on Rip.
share> didn't suggest at all that you needed a bunch of likeable characters.
You implied it, which is snarkier or worse. If you don't hear anything off
in the tone of your comments you're tone deaf. You're drawing conclusions
on conclusions you're already made without evidence, testing or asking.
The thing about nasty characters is like saying do you need a boat, or a
gun, or bare breasts, car crashes, the characters are tools to build a plot
which hopefully has some purpose or point. What Succession is missing is
a point, and 3 seasons into it, if the point is not making itself clear, no matter
how many tricky nasty character scenes there are, in the end is promises
to be for naught.
A lot of series these days uses scene devices or characters to sugar, salt
and fat in food to addict people to what is essentially empty calories. Mostly
there is not a point, so watching the series is the point, making money and
wasting time.
Retrospectively I'd say to someone watching this is it a hopeless case that they
will no doubt try to catch at the very end to try to say something positive to
pretend to justify all that negative. So, I would not recommend it. On the
other hand there is the fact that it is being talked about and hyped, so if you
see it you have something to talk to other people who have seen it about.
Again, your claim doesn't make it so. And I doubt you really read my reply or else you wouldn't hop on the Straw man that I already addressed. The OP never mentioned needing many likeable characters, and specifically mentioned only one (the wife) as someone he hoped would be, so where did you get my nonexistent implication from, besides thin air?
If you require that...
that = something other than "hardly any character that is likable." like "the wife turns out to be admirable"
in order for a show to be compelling, (AKA a reason to keep watching)
I doubt you will.
will = "really want to watch three seasons of a show"
That is exactly how I formulated my reply, like an equation from the OP's own words. No criticism at all. And my taste isn't present b/c it's irrelevant. And no suggestion that the OP "needs a bunch of likeable characters" at all.
As for your damning essay, please explain why you continue to watch. We live at a time when there's a million options for entertainment, yet you've clearly squeezed Succession into your bandwidth. Why watch this pointless, ugly, creepy, depressing, disgusting show with unlikable and unwatchable characters? Why devote another minute to this hopelessness? How have you possibly watched all 3 seasons? The OP is questioning whether to bail at a logical point, the first few episodes, yet you kept going thru all 29, and you'll surely watch S4. You've been a devout member of the Succession audience. Why? And don't bring up car accident nonsense, b/c that's no parallel, b/c people don't go driving with the intention of finding them to gawk at. You choose to tune in to Succession, you don't stumble upon it.
Until you can understand my first point, there is little reason to increase the discussion with you.
> You've been a devout member of the Succession audience.
I would not agree with that, and in fact it is another snark attack that I am sure you will deny and try to justify with your own illogic.
> And don't bring up car accident nonsense
Now you know why I used the word asshole.
This discussion? After you just threw in a critique of Succession, then some musings on television series elements, that was unrelated to the specific question regarding my first reply to the OP or anything that we were talking about? Filibuster then clam up when I bring it back to the actual point? No one, including the OP, asked you to expound on Succession beyond the emergence of a likeable character, but you just can't help yourself when it comes to this show. I'd think the book would be long closed by now. Hasn't the show declared itself loud and clear a coupla dozen eps ago? Why not: Verdict rendered. Fuck this show. I won't watch any longer. Nothing left to comment on. Instead you contribute to its ratings and buzz.
But anyway, no answer, of course, just as you dodged the same idea above when I brought it up twice before.
"I would not agree with that"
Despite the absurdity of denying what's supported in evidence by your own words regarding your Succession viewing habits, I don't need you to agree. I'll just accept myself as final arbiter regardless. Am I doing this right? Using the logic you started all this with, only I need to decide what's true to make it true. Just affix a label and that's that. Then I just cup my ears, close my eyes, and cry blah-blah-blah to anything that doesn't mirror my first take, b/c with my omniscience, I cannot possibly be wrong -- but hey, even if I realized that I might be, I'm way too invested now to admit a mistake, right? So just double down and parrot away.
Prediction: Spring/Summer '23, there'll be another comment -- somewhere on this board -- from you, about the awfulness of this show and its characters -- after you watch S4, of course.
I dealt with what you are calling your point. No need to rebut every time you say the same thing again and again back.
shareIt just gets worse. I've watched what is out there ... and I would not have missed much looking back if I had missed it. It's ugly and creepy, but it is a bit like staring as you drive by an accident.
shareYou won't find a likable character. But the show works because it's not a poo face drama.
share