My phrasing was misleading. Someone realized the shoe was tied, and Harmon said "fuck it, it's untied by british standards".

Yeah, I kinda stay away from that episode. It's a great one, it just hits right in the gut. And I think it speaks to my greatest insecurity.

The moment it became clear what the plot/pattern was (everyone is leaving, Jeff is freaking out), I got very anxious. I knew there was no happy ending. The happy ending was Jeff accepting his fate, but that seemed sad. It wasn't him getting anything he wanted, it was him... giving up. And the reason I phrase it that way, is because I still have that flaw that Jeff conquered in that episode.

What's your take on this? I have 2 theories, one nicer than the other:

1. When the shows start off well and hit great commercial success, a combination of factors can affect their quality later on.

2. The writers don't have enough talent to live up to the promise of the premise. The first season does well anyways, because introductions are easier. It's an open playground on blank canvas, so you don't have to start delivering or care about consistency. A few seasons in, their dependency on a core cast and the same few ideas starts to show.

There was something that bothered me last episode:

When Neumann is talking to some politician, and he's saying something about how the baby is alive and can feel pain from conception. I don't have a problem with that piece of satire in general, I just have a problem with it being said by a politician in a party of elites. That's the shit they say to manipulate voters and consumers. They even reference this later on in this episode.

They don't actually believe these things, and don't care about any issues in the first place. They just care about power and money. Idk, it just felt so out of place. I guess it was just there to have the joke where she blows her own head up.

I agree. I would say the plot of s4 is more interesting, but s3 was better written. I think that's why we have most people saying s3 was better, but u/Kalrhin 's comment is still popular, and not really wrong.

S3 was a simple plot - SB is back, and then it's just very character driven.

S4's plot has a lot going on (Virus, Neumann, Ryan, Butcher's Venom) - but the writing has gotten pretty bad.

But... when is the climax? Is it going to be just the last couple of episodes?

I get your point, but if the show lives and dies by the promise of something that can't happen until the very end... doesn't that strike you as bad writing? The journey and his descent into madness is worthwhile, I agree with you there. However, can you really say there's been any descent to madness?

In a nutshell, I think he changed from S1 to S2, but ever since he's been pretty much the same.

Longer answer: We see various scenes of him losing it. We can project a pattern and a descent, but to me, it just seems like a bunch of disconnected scenes. they are scenes of him losing it, so it's easy to connect dots and think there's progression, but I don't think there is.

Think about it this way. In s4, there's a whole episode dedicated to him murdering the lab. In s3, he murders someone in front of everyone and people cheer. If you swap two of his snapping moments, would it feel out of place? Or would it feel no different, because there is no progression? In my opinion, you can easily swap them because there's no direct correlation to his actions and character development. It's just the next random act of violence.

Or, think about it this way. He took over Vaught. That was stupid of him, he did so as a part of his descent. How has Vought changed? They still have armed forces that show up whenever they need to. They are still making movies. They are still involved in politics. There are too many "oh shit, things are going to change now", only for things to remain pretty much the same. Where is the journey?

That initial premise was why I loved the show in the first place. I thought it was going to be a thrilling chess game with deadly stakes.

It quickly turned out to be just another show, with a regular cast that is untouchable (on both sides), and a few new characters introduced each season to kill them off.

And her goons randomly show up to a meeting that Hughie set up.

If it weren't for those damn kids!

But still better than it has any right to be. I thought it would be very bare bones, but it's surprisingly decent on its own.

Apparently, that line came because Harmon realized you can see his shoe tied in a previous frame or something.

So, rather than reshoot with an untied shoe, they just came up with that line.

I think that the OOP saw "Love", and assumed it meant romantic love, and therefore thought there was a bug.

But Love just means high approval rating, and fans of this franchise are just super thirsty. I swear, most of the posts around here are about romances

The best female character is a mute?

Yikes

I hadn't thought of fanboying. That actually explains things. We see some takes that just make no sense at all, and it's confusing people could be so illogical. But if they are just wroking backwards from "I must defend this show", then their comments make sense. They aren't thinking, just speaking

I think we've all just given up on Hughie as a character. His role is to be a punching bag.

If he scared and feels powerless -> It's toxic masculinity, he needs to be ok with being powerless (kimiko's arc is the opposite)

If he is angry at his mother for abandonment -> He needs to learn to forgive her

Gets sexually assaulted -> it's for a joke

And also... why not catch him later? They know where the Starlight foundation is, they probably know about his dad in the hospital. They aren't hiding underground. When a scene ends, there's no reason for conflict or chasing to stop.

He's asked about having Hughie sexually assaulted after his dad just died, and he just calls it a joke. Then he goes into a fascism spiel to change the subject and seem like he's in the moral high ground.

It's disgusting

I wasn't re-triggered by the scene itself, but the idea that Kripke will get away with this... that bothers me.

You mean like the OOP? Who thinks Tek Knight fingering a glass is a tell about him "knowing"? When if you've watched the show fully, you'd know he just has a fetish, and the glass thing had nothing to do with suspicions about Hughie?

Yeah, but the webhole was all the way up in his lower back. It wasn't two holes right near each other.

Yes, it's worthless as a data point. That's /u/cchoe1 's point, not the other OP's.

This thread is full of bad reading comprehension about some really basic concepts. Is it full of bots or what?

Like /u/otaroKujoxXx said, he does this for different reasons. It's explicitly called out in Gen V

Same. I was hoping they'd double down with another ridiculously specific book title, like "The Milkman needs your help" or "The french man left and I'm sad"

Yes... and in describing the parody, Kripke describes Batman as having fascist undertones. You two think that being a parody means that the author will never make a comment about the source material. They aren't mutually exclusive, and we have the quote right there.

I think we are seeing the result of lack of creativity and laziness. They replace proper writing, which is hard, with edgy and shock.