What are you watching in 2024?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

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.

[MU82]

I was shocked that Ted Lasso didn't take home a single award.   Their final season was absolute magic.

Agree.

The Bear is great, but it's even a stretch calling it a comedy.

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.

I thought Matthew Macfadyen deserved the Emmy; his role as Tom grew and he played it perfectly. And I'd certainly put Culkin at or near the top.

My main disagreement was with Snook over Ramsey. I really don't think it should have been even close.

It sounds like you didn't like Succession at all, though. Which is obviously your prerogative. I loved it - maybe a glutton for punishment?

[PGsHeroes32]

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.

Snook deserved that role hands down

The only real travesty was BCS expectedly being blanked again. Seahorn acts circles around stiflers mom

[Lennys Tap]

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.

+1. Awful, one dimensional characters. Nothing ever really happened, just repetition of the same theme - bad people doing bad things.

[brewcity77]

2 wasn't as good.  But it had Kelly Reilly.

4/1 featured Lone Star beer and a flat circle, so nice callbacks.

Also had the same symbol that was tattooed on Dora Lange's back.

[muwarrior69]

While you guys were watching the Emmys and Golden Globe awards, I was watching professional wrestling.

[mu_hilltopper]

+1. Awful, one dimensional characters. Nothing ever really happened, just repetition of the same theme - bad people doing bad things.

+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.

[shoothoops]

Succession, white lotus, the bear, beef

Those seem to be the shows dominating golden globes and Emmy noms/wins

Abbott elementary, ted lasso, better call Saul, Barry

Less so

I don’t have much interest in awards and awards shows, whether that is sports, music, tv/movies etc….not my thing.

With that said, “Abbott Elementary” is a good show. They won best Actress and they have won best Supporting Actress, Best Writing, etc…it isn’t going to win for sound mixing type of stuff, and, as a female driven show it isn’t going to win some of the make awards like actor or supporting actor.

Again, I don’t pay much attention to it but it seems certain shows clean up in the awards some years and some other shows do the same a different year.

I’m all for people promoting their projects to improve their success and future opportunities.

[MUBurrow]

+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. 

[Lennys Tap]

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.

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.

[MU82]

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.

[JWags85]

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.

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.

[tower912]

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.

Yes.  Felt some early Twin Peaks vibe, too. There are going to have to be some forays into the supernatural.

[PGsHeroes32]

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.

Agreed on all of this. Compariing Succession to Entourage is insulting. And I found entourage very enjoyable back in the day.

And I can totally get people not loving succession, heck I liked it a lot and imo I find it laughable when people say its as good or better than shows like Wire, Sopranos, BB/BCS.

One thing I cant really understand is some of the flack/lack of credit for the acting. As you said they all showed plenty and consistently.

[wadesworld]

I didn't think Succession was all that great, and maybe it's because of all the hype around it.  I did like Greg and Roman.

Entourage was good.  Then again, maybe if I watched it again now it wouldn't be.

[MurphysTillClose]

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.

Billy Walsh was a great character!!! But my god if you watch Entourage today it is so damn cheesy, but that is part of why I enjoy it every once in a while.

[MU82]

I totally agree with Wags' post, especially about the acting.

As for Entourage - a show I watched and mostly enjoyed ... comparing it to Succession is like comparing The Monkees to Hill Street Blues.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

Honestly, what change and growth did Tom show? He was a manipulative suckup in the pilot and he was a manipulative suckup in the finale, the only difference I saw is that at the end he was a successful suckup. I don't think Tom changed at all, I think his situation did.

As for the acting, I think it depends on what makes a good acting performance to you, a very subjective topic. Culkin acted the crap out of Roman. He became the character and was the creepiest, most spineless nepobaby with daddy issues that ever did exist. My issue with his performance, and the rest of the show, is that he never made Roman into a human being. There wasn't a single human being on that show. None of them acted, reacted, or behaved like an actual human being. For me, the mark of a truly great acting performance is taking a character that is larger than life, but still making them feel real, like their character could actually exist in the real world. I don't think anyone on Succession was able to accomplish that. Technically, their performances were fantastic, they're all clearly talented actors, but (and this may be the fault of the director/writers) every single one of them was a caricature. not a person.

I'll be honest, I never sympathized with adult Kendall once. He was too over the top awful for me to feel anything other than disdain for him. Only time I sympathized with any of them was for their childhood selves.

[MU82]

We mostly enjoyed Fargo S5, although the finale could have been about 10 minutes long. Or better yet, add 10 minutes to the previous episode and call it a season. Moonk's musings didn't do much for us.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

Saw American Fiction this week and I highly recommend it.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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.

It made rich people look silly.  It’s a preposterous proposition

[MU82]

This is why there are a bazillion shows. Everything isn't for everybody.

Most critics agree with those of us who liked Succession. Now, critics aren't always "right," either. But it's not as if those of us who liked Succession are a few minority opinions coming out of left field.

I thought it was one of HBOs better dramas, a level down from The Wire and Sopranos but right there with anything else. This list ranks Succession 4th - https://www.indiewire.com/features/best-of/best-hbo-series-all-time-ranked-shows-1201859391/ - and this one ranks it 10th - https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/g26293745/best-hbo-series/ - but they include everything -- comedies like Curb and Veep, limited series like Chernobyl, etc.

It was a very good show IMHO and in the opinion of millions of others. I understand and respect those who feel otherwise.