Oso planning to go pro
I was disappointed to see The Last of Us get shut out of all the big awards. Especially to see Bella Ramsey not win her category; Sarah Snook won, and was fine, but Ramsey was incredible in a very challenging role. But the voters obviously wanted to give Succession everything in its last season. I loved Succession, which truly was one of the great shows in the history of a network that put out lots of them, but winning every freakin' award ... please.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
I was shocked that Ted Lasso didn't take home a single award. Their final season was absolute magic.
Finishing succession was a labor of...not love, something akin to hate. I really don't understand the love for the show, especially the acting. None of the roles are challenging. They all played charcitures of different kinds of rich people and showed no growth from episode one to the finale. I'll give it points for creative dialouge but even that was often just putting "unnatural carnal knowledge" in unique places in sentences.
2 wasn't as good. But it had Kelly Reilly.4/1 featured Lone Star beer and a flat circle, so nice callbacks.
+1. Awful, one dimensional characters. Nothing ever really happened, just repetition of the same theme - bad people doing bad things.
Succession, white lotus, the bear, beefThose seem to be the shows dominating golden globes and Emmy noms/winsAbbott elementary, ted lasso, better call Saul, Barry Less so
+2. I watched the first season and a half of Succession and gave up. I found it odd people enjoyed the same crap every episode. Oh noes, who is going to control the company? It's sooooooo important.
I called it B-School Entourage earlier in the thread - it was a guilty pleasure, but it was just the same "let's see what the crazy Roy kids (Entourage gang) get up to today - will they get the company (big movie role)?" It ended at the right time because I think viewership attrition would have hit hard in a fourth season.
S4 E1 of True Detective was really, really weird.Not so-weird-I-won't-watch-E2 weird, but weird. Curious to see where they go from here.
Except Entourage was junk food TV. There was no depth of acting outside of Piven. I loved Entourage at the time, but it was HORRIBLY acted compared to Succession. I don't agree with some of the hate for Succession here, but I can see how/why people didn't necessarily enjoy it. But I don't agree with any acting criticism. As 82 said, Tom showed a ton of change and growth throughout the series and Macfadyen is an accomplished actor who crushed it. Roman changed/developed a ton throughout the series and Culkin really grew into it. I think Kendall kind of plateaued as a character midway, but Jeremy Strong added a ton of depth to what was just a delusional rich kid. There was no reason to actually feel bad for Ken, but Strong added enough that you found yourself sympathizing with him from time to time.There were no "good" characters. Anyone was an anti-hero, circumstantially, at best. Some people don't like that. (I think Lenny specifically mentioned it about Saltburn) But that definitely didn't take anything away from the show for me. Great dialogue, dark humor, some absurdity. I wasn't crushed when it ended cause it had ran its course, in a good and satisfying way.
Except Entourage was junk food TV. There was no depth of acting outside of Piven. I loved Entourage at the time, but it was HORRIBLY acted compared to Succession. I don't agree with some of the hate for Succession here, but I can see how/why people didn't necessarily enjoy it. But I don't agree with any acting criticism. As 82 said, Tom showed a ton of change and growth throughout the series and Macfadyen is an accomplished actor who crushed it. Roman changed/developed a ton throughout the series and Culkin really grew into it. I think Kendall kind of plateaued as a character midway, but Jeremy Strong added a ton of depth to what was just a delusional rich kid. There was no reason to actually feel bad for Ken, but Strong added enough that you found yourself sympathizing with him from time to time.
Good comparison. The difference? I liked the crazy kids in Entourage - I could root for them while they “grew up”. The Roy kids? Not so much.
That's the entire point of the show. They're all just spoiled rich kids who have been abused by their father their entire life and have too much pressure to be him.The relationships and how they all screw each other for an unattainable goal of being daddy or pleasing daddy who really doesn't give a rip about any of them. His child is the company, and they never see it. Even when he's gone. He's played them against each other just like he does with everything his entire life. It worked for him in business so why wouldn't it work It's a great insight as to why rich people aren't smarter or more immune to abuse, stress, and how no matter how great things may seem from the outside, their world may be crumbling.The kids all wanted to be their dad, but eventually realized that they could never. Each was a part of him but they were each slices of the orange instead of the orange itself.I never cared WHO got the company, but rather how it happened.
I agree with you regarding what the show was “about”. I disagree that there was any “great insight” involved. The characters are one dimensional, shallow and totally lacking in self awareness. I can take that in a 90 minute movie - sometimes. But 5 seasons of an obvious, repetitious slow moving train wreck didn’t do it for me.
I understand it certainly wasn't for everyone. I merely found the show entertaining, not ground breaking. And I agree with some folks here that said there was a lot of sameness to the story season to season. I enjoyed the character development and the social snafus the most I think.