Tv shows can't be kin-

>tv shows can't be kin-

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wwL5Q02uwDE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It is fun to watch and everyone always performs well, but my God has it become formulaic:
>Character is almost not human, represents a pure unstoppable force (Malvo, Mike Milligan, Varga)
>Lovable dopes who try to be hardened criminals but aren't good at it (Bald McGregor and MEW, Jesse Plemons and Kristen Dunst, Martin Freeman)
>Relateble forces of good who are just trying to get by in this cold world (Patrick Wilson, Colin Hanks, Carrie Coon, the fat lady in season 1)
>A pair of eccentric soldiers who have some kind of weird bond and only know how to kill, intimidate, and other thuggish practices (Wrench & Numbers, the two Jewish guys, the Russian and the Asian in your picture)

o.

youtu.be/wwL5Q02uwDE

how buttstung do you have to be to make this?

Dude, Bryce is this you? I don't care if this or isn't, because you'd be that fucking autistic. Practically every retarded post I run in to, I automatically assume it's you.

This. Not to mention taking out the blues this season makes it look ugly as sin visually.

Yeah why did they even do that? It looks like fucking garbage.

Look at his videos, all he makes is contrarian shitpost reviews of everything popular

>Newage, when the shows suck but the reviews are kino

>taking out the blues
what

you son of a bitch stop shilling your fucking video

bryce? as in Dallas Howard? ?

I made a similar comment in the previous thread, it just feels like we've been here and done this before. I can't see the show lasting long because of this. It's not like Noah Hawley can't do anything else, Legion was great because it felt fresh and unique compared to anything else.

Have you noticed how nobody gives a fuck when Slavs are used for henchmen/mob hitmen/bad guys, but everyone loses it women, minorities etc?

>but everyone loses it women, minorities etc?
do they? I love a good woman henchman

Hanzo was way more the unstoppable force in season 2 than Mike Milligan could ever be

They were very similar characters.

I'd argue that the show should be given more time to see if it steps away from that formula. it's only been two episodes after all, I wasn't too keen on season 2 after episode 2 but I loved the rest of it

Shut the fuck up and enjoy the show and not what a bunch of rainbow haired surburbanite keyboard warriors decided to cry about today.

Yeah, Hanzo is a better fit for that category than Milligan. But otherwise I agree with user.

Yeah, and the antagonists really try my suspension of disbelief sometimes. I'd like to see one of these talking villains stand around yapping away with their smart-ass monologue for six minutes with an impatient nigress at the DMV and see how long it takes before they catch an uppercut.

No actually, I'd argue that at their core they were very different characters, and they were put in similar situations to highlight those differences.

In the end, while Mike kinda takes it and reluctantly settles, never breaking through the ceiling or matching up to his superiors, Hanzo gets mad at all the racism keeping him down and fucking goes off, rebels, and sticks it to everyone, rising above them all.

You forgot:
>"Smart" dialogue that owes everything to Hawley's thesaurus
>Empty one-dimensional characters that are either cartoonishly good, bad, or stupid
>Haphazard and lazy plot structure that culminates in a wet fart
>Pseudo-intellectual parlor tricks that attempt to distract from the complete lack of a compelling story or characters

first of all, his name is Hanzee. and second, who's to say Mike didn't do the exact same thing? Hanzee just became a fat old middle management goon, gunned down by Malvo.

I think you have the formula wrong

>Small Overly friendly community where everybody knows your name and there's no need to lock the front door

>Organized crime syndicate in the next town manage to fuck it up every time.

This Sensational formula of Niceville meets Organizedcrimeville will never, ever get old.

But they should try to rehash the characters though

Exhibit 1,000,000 that this show fundamentally misunderstands the source material it's based off of.

>"anonymous" poster attempts to offer a critique through buzzwords, crying pseudo-intellectual while being the embodiment of that himself

tv kino has been achieved a long time ago

>can't actually engage in discussion so instead of arguing just attacks poster for using buzzwords while pretending he doesn't shout pure kino every chance he gets

are you saying im right or im wrong?

Right about the formula for the show, wrong about it never getting old.

>can't understand why a teenager who offers surface level critiques to appear le smart gets memed on

honestly, I thought the overly blue season 1 was kinda ugly

it's called pottery you stupid FAGGOT

This show is the definition of Idiot Plot. Not kino.

ummmmm no sweetie that's not kino

this is

back to tv tropes and r/movies with you

Great argument for why this show isn't a vapid piece of shit. I can surmise from your comments that you are truly an enlightened connoisseur and can extrapolate that Fargo must be a genius program made for geniuses.

see

Your mom's a vapid piece of shit and still, everyone ITT fucked her.

also

>charming nerdy girl in the shop

I don't think you've really provided an argument either though. You need to back up your points with evidence. As it is now, he's right. You've just thrown buzzwords into a post. What kind of pseudo-intellectual parlor tricks? Why is the plot structure lazy and haphazard, and why is it a problem? Who's a one-dimensional character?

There's not much anybody can say at the moment but "I disagree".

is that arteezy?

...

wew, someone's sore that no-one cares about their hot opinions

to be fair, every discussion on reddit is vapid and retarded

While here it's autistic and retarded.

...

I think that Google VM Varga was fucking stupid.

I don't know couldn't they have made it at least somewhat plausible. Like the old attorney finds a website that contains a phone number, calls and then gets whacked because the old man didn't use a private line?

Like I know that's not as visually cool as "OMG a hacker website that takes a picture of you and then kills your internet" but still.

You could say, "I disagree and here's why", but that's pretty difficult I get it and this thread needs bumps.

Parlor Tricks
>Non sequitur opening
>Ridiculous over-the-top soundtrack featuring things like Mongolian throat singing
>"Epic" cinematography framed with an annoying aspect ratio
>Coen Brothers references galore

Plot structure
>Scenes rarely build on each other, episodes have zero cohesiveness thematically
>Largely constructed around coincidences, and killing time until those coincidences occur
>Even the most ardent fans think the final episodes suck, defend it with "the climax happened last episode so it doesn't matter."

One-dimensional characters
>Literally every single character. The only shades of gray occur due to immense stupidity.

Hanzee becoming white is pure retardation. A twist for the sake of a twist. Not even a real twist more of a forced callback. Why did they think it was a good idea.

Fuck you putin shill hacker

It's not so much that I disagree that those things are in the show, more that I disagree that they're a problem. I don't find the parlor tricks particularly offensive, so I'll address plot structure.

Isn't the fact that the scenes don't build on each other something pretty standard to the tv format since Twin Peaks introduced serialised story-telling - something that's partially a product of the medium, and not necessarily a problematic one? It's not something specific to Fargo, unless you mean it in some other way - especially when you're dealing with an ensemble cast, and as a result, the individual story threads might be tonally different - Andy and Lucy's sweet but dopey romance in Twin Peaks was a million miles from Laura Palmer's trauma. I mean, Fargo's serialised, not episodic, so you'd expect a slow build - the story per episode isn't self-contained, and you can't really evaluate it based on such.

Okay then

>Why is the plot structure lazy and haphazard, and why is it a problem?

not who you responded to but I do have issues with a lot of the plotting, especially in Season 2. midway through the season everything starts to go full retard. As an example

>Hank gets knocked out at Ed and Peggy's house while trying to protect Peggy
>wakes up still at the house
>just leaves instead of immediately going downstairs to see if Peggy is alright, doesn't check on her whereabouts at all

later that episode

>Lou works really hard to get Ed out of the police station while the Gerhardts siege it
>Lou and Ed run into Hank on the road
>Ed runs away ON FOOT while they have A CAR
>"ehhh no big deal we'll catch him later(?)"
>they lose him and Peggy for two whole episodes

I like the show a lot but some of the plotting can't help but feel very contrived

Twin Peaks didn't introduce serialized storytelling. It was specifically designed to be a take on the soap opera, and the juxtaposition of the idyllic storybook small town with the dark undercurrents is the entire point of the show. It also had multi-dimensional characters (that effortlessly carried the story) despite the fact that they were directly playing with goofy archetypes.

I don't think that television has to strictly adhere to telling a story in the episodic format, but almost all of the greats never seemed to forget the fact that the format offers the unique ability to tell a story that stands on its own while still fitting into the overarching plot. But the bottom line is that Fargo fails on both accounts. It jumps around like it's a soap opera, has no characters to anchor it, and has no sense of flow or build up for the story it's trying to tell. It's inconsistent, random, and ridiculous in its resolution.

I don't really agree that the characters are one-dimensional, either.

Lester starts out sympathetic and ends up despicable. At first, you're tempted to pity him, because he seems so utterly down-trodden, emasculated and humiliated - he appears as a classic sad sap or schmuck character: meek, mild, awkward, etc. By the end of the series, though, he's been revealed as something else entirely. He's a callous, conniving, furtive, shallow human being who has, and never had, any affection or genuine interest in his wives or family - likely, he only got married to his wife because he felt he had to, out of fear for social ostracisation, and wears his second wife like as a gloating trophy and testimony to his own success. He never had any friends, and he was always socially awkward, because he's incapable of connecting with other human beings, only conning them.

I mean, that, to me, suggest nuance and subtlety in characterisation. It's human, and recognisable - we've probably met nerds IRL that are just like him, people with zero respect or regard for anybody else, yet still think they're the victim when they're rejected. At the same time, his arc is also thematically appropriate. He goes from prey to predator, from rodent to wolf - or more accurately, jackal.

I found the same applied to Peggy Blumquist. She started out despicable, but her trajectory reversed, and by the end of the series she was much more sympathetic - her seeming selfishness and manipulation was motivated by genuine desperation and unhappiness.

Leaving aside that Lester is almost a direct rip off of Jerry Lundegaard, his supposedly nuanced characterization is a sham. He's a selfish coward who kills his wife at the beginning of the show, and he's a selfish coward who kills his wife at the end of the show. He's a dumb, ignorant man who allows himself to be corrupted by a literal demon. The idea that his arc is anything other than a juvenile morality play is laughable.

Sorry, what I meant was that it introduced serialised story-telling to television in the form of material that was considered worth critically evaluating - one of the first examples of so-called "quality television". And let's not go rose-tinted about Twin Peaks - some of the characters developed schizophrenia in the second season, and no longer acted as recognisable versions of themselves, and even then the multi-dimensional characters that you recognise were incapable of carrying a meandering, pointless story that had totally lost direction.

And when I say serialised, I should clarify - Fargo is serialised in as much as it is one story carried over thirteen episodes. Most of the classics told one multiple stories, or arcs, over 76 episodes. Each season of Fargo is a self-contained story, and I personally don't find them random, ridiculous or inconsistent in their resolutions - or, at least, when it was random, it felt like it was motivated by a message. The rain of fish in season one seemed to relate to the presumptiousness of Milos - a man who believed his success was ordained by God gets punished for his hubris and his hypocrisy. Or, more likely, a man who's arrogance and delusion is so great that he sees divine approval of his deeds in every random coincidence pays the price for his folly.

Characterising the plot as driven solely by random chance and coincidence is somewhat misleading, though. The show and the movie are less about a state of total chaos than they are about choices and consequences - decisions that cause problems rather than give solutions, because its impossible to foresee or predict the effects of one's actions, and as such, impossible to control or order the universe, or one's place in it, to one's liking. To me, then, the random coincidences aren't entirely random, and are at any rate certainly not inconsistent, as they are made coherent by a over-arching theme or message.

You're right, ALL villains should be "white of indeterminate nationality" with no accent, or any other distinguishing features that could relate too closely to non-villainous viewers at home.

The important thing is that NOBODY feels offended

Lester is definitely inspired by Jerry, but is sufficiently removed from him as to be distinct. And as to his characterisation being a sham - the point is that he's a selfish coward, yes, but the fact that he is a shallow person isn't a problem if they intended to depict, and succeeded in depicting, a shallow person. He is not shallow by virtue of poor characterisation, but successful characterisation.

Peggy Blumquist is not a shallow person, however, and her selfishness and manipulative qualities are firmly placed in context of her own desperation, unhappiness, and relative powerlessness.

I mean, your dislike of the show seems to stem from a belief that it's attempting to be, or accepted as, a philosophical treatise on human morality equivalent to a work of genius, when I never took it as such, nor do I think it's ever claimed to be such either. It's a stylish, entertaining, intelligent show but not one that's likely to be life-changing.

Snoop.

It's Hansi, "short" for Hans, a German name, as you probably know. He was adopted by Germans.

>the two Jewish guys
Do you mean the Kitchen brothers?