I don’t get the negativity. Honestly you people are so entitled. The lack of context is intentional and there are several clues as to why it’s that way. It’s not a 50s to show (we haven’t seen them imitate a 60s tv show yet, that’s next week). It’s going to change probably every week, even up to the point of imitating modern tv shows like the office from what they’ve said. And the context is clear enough by the end of the second episode. Even without reading additional articles to explain the more subtle hints, you can tell what’s going on at least loosely. Plus it does a great job lampooning the absurdity of 50s tv and ideals about homemaking and marriage. To hilarious effect
This show is streets ahead.
I’m so shocked by these negative comments... this latest episode was so good, and you needed the first few episodes to play out how they did for context. You guys are weird lol.
I watched the first season when it aired, and thought it was a muddled mess, but based on the recommendation of friends I gave it another try, and I'm so glad I did. Season 2 the show really starts to find its footing, and pace. Another commenter mentioned the "trendy ending that doesn't answer any questions"; to that I have to say what more questions could you possibly want answered? I thought the "ending was BRILLIANT".
The entire show is about the extremes that humans will go to assign meaning to random events. There is no providence, there is no master plan, there is no destiny, and if you believe otherwise, then yes, you WILL be disappointed in this series. In the end this show is about the human mind and how it is so very fragile and so fallible; yet it shapes the world around us, and more importantly shapes those around us. We must be careful with sharing our beliefs, because they are contagious, yet in the end my amount to nothing.
Why does a law professor also run a high stakes law firm, expecting her entry level students to do all the leg work of a field they know nothing about?
Imagine walking into your first science class, only to have the teacher yell at you for not knowing advanced quantum mechanics already, then failing you if you don't cure cancer.
Just one of those shows that really turned me off, at some point I really didn't like the characters even though I felt invested in it, it just really turned me off.
I can't handle this anymore
I got up to S02E12 and its just... bleugh
I find myself checking Twitter more than watching this
The words cult and classic doesn`t even begin to describe this. It´s amazing it premiered over 75 years ago. I have seen this so many times and it still makes me laugh every time. Although I feel for poor old Tom much more with every time I watch it.
I prefer the original Hanna/Barbera cartoons. The later ones are OK but never quite reached the quality in terms of animation and script.
I mean. I'm a simple woman. You say "Jake Johnson" and I'm there.
if you dont like the show, then stop watching.
a) I did. Ages ago.
b) you have to watch something to know whether or not you like it
c) "if you don't like my comments, then stop reading"
d) it's called criticism and totally valid to say, even if you have issues with criticism of a show you like, because you project that criticism on yourself
e) if you can't see anything wrong with this show, good for you
no one wants a homophobic asshole watching the show, believe me.
a) why should I believe you, you are a stranger starting directly with ad hominems and you are - sorry to say - no authority to say who wants what, or what person to declare an "asshole"
b) educate yourself what "homophobic" actually means and realize, in the context of my criticism here and in several episodes, that it's not applicable towards me. But for that you might need to fully understand what I say instead of getting riled up over a comment you don't like, on a show you enjoy so much that you'd ignore all the issues it has. If you call it equality and not the exact opposite how this show uses male homosexuality to provoke then I can't help you, you are a part of the issue this show has.
c) nice ad hominem, thanks for making another great example why trakt needs moderators to take away the ability to comment for some people.
and peter nowalk writes the show, not shonda. get educated before you speak
I don't care who writes the show on a regular basis, nor did I say here Shonda Rhimes is writing it, didn't I? Shonda Rhimes' company produces it and if you think she has no influence on this show at all you're incredibly naive.
Get educated, hm? I like the irony in that.
Thanks for the chuckle, but go back under the bridge you came from. :D
Sadly It's way too underrated
I was very enthused about this once I heard it was Lindlehoff at the helm. The Leftovers is one of my all time favorites, and this series promises to be a deep dive thematically with him at the helm. The series opener is as smart and interesting as I expected, but I was happy to see that it delivers on the action elements, as well. Very solid beginning - I'm psyched to see where it goes.
Started watching for Nathan and was not disappointed. Perfect amount of humour, action and familiar character developed to make it addictive without being tiring. It's rare that i get to season 2 of a show and would prefer not to have a break until the third season. Also like the addition of body cam footage, makes me feel more part of the action. How realistic is it? Frankly don't care, I can watch a number of show, heavy dramas for that which I equally love but that's not what i came here for. As advertised.
I felt that this show really should be evaluated in three parts, as it’s almost as if there were three shows in one. The first season was based on the novel of the same name, so the writers had clearly marked signposts to follow. As the novel was quite compelling, so too was the first season of the show. However, this is where the book ended, and the writers had to take up the slack. The natural progression of events led them to follow the court case surrounding the death of Hannah Baker, as well as the criminal trial of Bryce Walker..
I felt that these two seasons should be evaluated in terms of being different shows. The first season was clearly the best season of the four b/c, that’s the material the book covered, and the writers didn’t have to come up w/ any of their own material. The second season, although panned by some fans and critics, still followed the same themes of the first season, yet it was not up to par in terms of storyline or writing.
The third and fourth seasons should be considered a third show all on their own. While they did stick to similar themes from the first and second seasons, the writers clearly had no plan in place to go beyond the end of the novel. These last two seasons, especially, felt completely disjointed from the first two. The third season was long and drawn out, and the payoff in the end was neither surprising nor all that interesting. If they had maintained more of a mysterious atmosphere over what they were doing, it might have been better.
The fourth season was just a mess. Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch. They began this in season three and continued on in season four. It really added no particular value to the show or the character of Clay.
As for the storyline in the final season, it was absolutely ludicrous. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say, the writers really didn’t put much thought into what they were doing. The last two episodes of the show were especially pointless. The prom episode was completely unnecessary, as was the finale, at least the way it was filmed. And, it certainly didn’t require 90 minutes to portray the events of what happened in the finale. Not to mention, the last scene of the show was absolutely awful.
I think that the worst part of this show, however, was the treatment of two characters, Bryce Walker and Montgomery de la Cruz. In the third season, the writers actually spend quite a few resources rehabilitating the image of Bryce, as if there was some redemption to be had for him. He was a serial predator, and his actions would have stemmed from a deep-seated psychological disorder that wouldn’t have simply gone away, b/c he acknowledged his wrongdoing and felt bad about it. They did something similar w/ Monte in the fourth season, and I felt that it was incredibly disingenuous, dangerous, and irresponsible to take this path, b/c it showed that they really hadn’t researched the topics they were writing about. It was really surprising to watch this, and even both of Jessica’s relationships w/ Justin and Diego were quite questionable, especially given her role as head of the women’s rights movement on campus.
