MovieChat Forums > sunezno > Replies
sunezno's Replies
If that scene happened the way it showed us, though, then Laura would have a good case for self-defense (had she actually called the cops right then, and had they actually done a proper investigation). It certainly wasn't murder. Which, in a way, makes it all the more frustrating to me.
I really wanted to like this show, I swear. I pushed through to the very end, just hoping that somehow it would get better. But holy hell, from the very first episode, I was just constantly yelling at my TV screen. Not a <i>single</i> likeable character throughout the entire show (except maybe Ian or Liam), so it was really hard to root for the "good guys," because I hated every one of them.
It was also annoying that each time they'd bring in a new female character, they had to make her just as stupid and incompetent as the others. It was infuriating! I kept hoping for a character to prove me wrong, but they never did. The main character, Laura, was terrible right off the bat. I get that she was going through a horrible trauma, but my god, it felt like every single decision she made was the worst one, and completely impulsive, and always with negative consequences that anyone would've seen coming from miles away. Yet somehow she never did, and then she's all shocked that X, Y, or Z happened as a direct result of her childish actions.
As you mentioned in your first point, about the crime scene crew: that pissed me off, too! There were SO many things within the show that were just ridiculous and unrealistic, many of them concerning forensics and the police investigations.
And then when the very end episode happened, and it shows us (presumably as it happened) that Laura was the one that caused Andrew's death, I kept yelling at the TV, "That's fucking self-defense, then, not murder!"
And yes, I do get that Laura had had bad experiences with the cops with the previous rape allegations/investigations, but still, had she actually gone to the cops when that happened, they would've been able to see that it was clearly self-defense.
Same with the shipping container bit. The guy sprayed his blood everywhere to make it look like he died there, but any blood spatter analyst would be able to tell that it was a completely staged scene.
Just a god awful show, what a shame :(
Sleezy, yes. Illegal, no.
<blockquote>But if he was creepy or toxic to the underage actors, then go after him.</blockquote>
Dan was bringing in tons of money. That right there is the primary reason that nobody ever did anything back then. They want more money and fewer scandals. Duh.
And the people being victimized risk losing everything if they speak out.
Also, it's not just one bad guy in a sea of good guys.
As far as the content issues, I'm on the fence about that stuff. On one hand, yeah, anything too sexual absolutely should've been removed by any of the people that had a say, so I can't imagine how they got away with many of the things.
It's fine to have that kind of humor, but there's a time and a place for it. Injecting sexual stuff into media aimed at children is just disgusting, and it clearly is an example of who the writer is as a person.
And sure, obviously there are going to be the gross people out there who will sexualize anything children do, and that's an unfortunate part of humanity. But that's not an excuse to write sexuality into the scenes in the first place.
I'll have to keep an eye out for this, because I've never seen/noticed it before.
But unfortunately my digital version of the first three seasons are pretty low quality, so maybe it's just too fuzzy for me to be able to read any of that.
I'll have to dig out my actual DVDs one of these days.
I've watched this show at least as many times as Lindsey's been pregnant (which is to say, "Oh yeah, dozens of times"), but I don't think I've ever noticed the banana stand graffiti that you pointed out.
I mean, I saw that there was graffiti on it, of course, but I don't think I ever noticed what it said. Dude, thank you!!
And to answer your question, yes, I'm pretty sure it <i>is</I> the smartest sitcom of all time.
've opened a door here that I regret...
The depth of this show is just unmatched.
Perfectly said.
<blockquote>Not to mention, single camera comedies have ZERO re-watch value. Their funny, but not a lot of fun in it.</blockquote>
I don't care how many cameras <I>Arrested Development</I> had, this is probably one of the only shows that not only warrants but <I>requires</I> multiple viewings. I've seen it dozens of times and I'm always catching some new subtle joke layered in there. That's one of the best things about the show, honestly. The more you watch it, the more you love it. Not many shows only get <I>better</I> with each re-watch.
That said, I'm referring to the original three seasons, of course. I've seen the 4th (both versions) and 5th a couple of times each, because they did have some funny parts, but overall, I don't consider the 4th and 5th seasons to be part of <I><b>the</b> Arrested Development</I> show.
But clearly different people have different tastes. There are <I>many</I> single-camera shows that I could watch over and over again.
I think it has less to do with the number of cameras and more to do with the writing and characters.
But again, I think this show is one that only gets better with each viewing. The writing is so layered that many punchlines come episodes or even seasons ahead of the joke itself.
I wrote that last comment right after he initially appeared at the door in the episode, so I was pleasantly surprised to see how the rest of it played out.
I kept trying to imagine how that episode would seem to viewers who'd never seen Psychoville and thus didn't have that reference knowledge lol
It's hard to say for sure because I don't really remember how I felt before he opened his mouth the first time and unleashed his garbage personality, but as a general rule for anyone, the soul-patch and ponytail combo is a terrible look lol
Personally, if I try to separate just his physical appearance from everything else I know about him...idk, I think I still got a weird vibe from him just by his looks. You know how sometimes certain people just have a look that makes you uneasy or distrustful? I feel like he just has that slimey sort of character look, ya know?
Of course that's still not strictly physical, because it's tacking on a presumed personality, I suppose...
But to be fair, it is hard to separate the two much of the time. If his face and body (minus the soul-patch and ponytail) belonged to a genuinely good and decent person, then yeah, I guess I couldn't fault someone for finding him attractive.
So yeah, I wouldn't say his physical characteristics are necessarily unattractive on their own (terrible hair decisions aside), but I wouldn't say he's a silver fox, either.
But, again, he just gave me a creepy vibe from the start, and then everything he said and did only solidified that vibe for me.
You're right, clearly those are perfect parallels. /s
I think he had a pretty cool 'stache decades ago, but discounting that, I think he is absolutely disgusting. The ponytail and soul-patch are like the physical manifestations of his inner Yuck. Throw that entire person in the garbage, seriously. Two episodes into the first Tiger King show and I have been rooting for the tigers to get him every time I see this walking bag of hair on screen.
I'm finally watching "Inside No. 9" and just got extremely excited to see a crossover episode (S5E2: Death Be Not Proud) featuring David Sowerbutts!
I fucking love these guys, man.
I haven't seen the Halloween one yet; I think I only heard of it via these boards, but I haven't been able to find it online digitally yet, so I might have to just find the DVDs now anyway.
I might have to find it on DVD someday, because I just have it on files on my computer, which is nice, in some ways, but I also love having the physical copy of things like that.
Does the DVD have extras and stuff, too?
I'd never heard of it until seeing some of the comments on here, so I downloaded it and plan on giving it a goo today. I'm excited!
I randomly found and binged this show a year or so ago, and I fell in love with it right away, of course.
I'm rewatching it now, and although I'd already suspected that at least two characters were played by the same person (I figured Hattie and David were the same actor, and Maureen and one of the singing serial killers were the same actor), I was blown the fuck away when I decided to look up what actor played Lomax.
At first I was like, "Okay, this has to be some kind of typeo, right?" Reece Shearsmith is Mr. Jelly, Maureen, Brian, the singing serial killer (John Reginald Christie), and Jeremy Goode/Silent Singer, and then Steve Pemberton is David, Hattie, George, Judge Pennywise, and <I>Mr. Lomax</I> of all people!!
My god, that in itself just gives me an extra layer of appreciation for the show that I hadn't thought was possible.
I'm only on S2E2 of this current rewatch, but now I might need to restart the whole thing just to admire the acting chops of what I had originally assumed were multiple different people.
In case you don't catch my earlier comment:
1) If an adult male molests a young boy, that does not necessarily mean that the offender is gay <I>or</I> that he's a pedophile. He could very well be a straight man attracted to adult females but simply an opportunistic offender.
2) Not every adult (or youth) who sexually assaults a child is a pedophile.
and 3) On that note, not every pedophile is a sex offender.