avclub-4abf5e04b1dc5a9138289c1f400a1613--disqus
The Silent 1
avclub-4abf5e04b1dc5a9138289c1f400a1613--disqus

Honestly, I never saw the original trilogy as being about the rebellion. That was simply the backdrop to a series of films that was really about Luke's personal journey to become a Jedi. Think about it, the first film begins with Luke leaving his home because he wants to learn the ways of the force with Obiwan and

"But I can't sympathize with Robin because I can't care about Annie.  So what if his heart is broken?"

Pretty much in agreement. At this point it seems like Frank is who he is and the writers don't know what else to do with him besides sticking him in these oddball subplots that usually fall flat for me. I liked the way Sepinwall put it in his recap, Frank is the cost of doing business. They wouldn't have the show

Someone else said it best, they made Homer dumber with each season and when they couldn't push that any further, they made him mean.

Someone else said it best, they made Homer dumber with each season and when they couldn't push that any further, they made him mean.

Lots of great moments in this episode:

I think people say the Wire is novelistic because each episode is literally like a chapter in a book. There are no cliffhangers and the episodes just kind of end. Even Mad Men, while serialized usually has episodes that can somewhat stand on its own and has its own theme and story that its trying to tell. As for the

@avclub-7aee1b75b527e215f31e20a5c4e7a768:disqus Before the Wire ever went into production, David Simon wrote a very detailed outline for the entire first season (which you can find online) including summaries for each episode, descriptions of all characters, and even pieces of dialogue he planned on using. Granted

I'm sorry, but many of Sepinwall's comments with regards to Lost just sound like making excuses to me. "Yeah, the show didn't deliver here, but its not really about that". How about I defend the last season of Homeland in the same way, "Yeah, I know the season was full of illogical plot points and very sloppy writing,

I disagree somewhat. Lost sustained itself largely through mystery and suspense. We didn't always know why certain things were happening, but we trusted that there was a logic to it all that we just wouldn't be privy to until the final episode. When the answers finally did come it would retroactively color the way we

Not exactly true. Weiner had written a script a long time ago for a movie that was basically the Dick Whitman story as we know it today. When he wrote the script for the pilot for Mad Men he didn't originally plan for Don to have a secret identity, but when AMC asked for a meeting to discuss where the show would go if

We don't know anything 100% at that point. Django was lucky enough to be able to get back at the plantation while most were at Calvin's funeral giving him time to plant the dynamite and get Broomhilda to safety. If we weren't shown this and the movie had ended like you describe, then for all we know Django could have

We don't know anything 100% at that point. Django was lucky enough to be able to get back at the plantation while most were at Calvin's funeral giving him time to plant the dynamite and get Broomhilda to safety. If we weren't shown this and the movie had ended like you describe, then for all we know Django could have

I think there is enough to show how Stephen's facade benefited him. You can see from his interactions with the other slaves that he clearly has authority over them. His interactions with the slaves in the kitchen, the way he talks to Broomhilda, hes even shown handling some of Calvin's paperwork while hes out. He

I think there is enough to show how Stephen's facade benefited him. You can see from his interactions with the other slaves that he clearly has authority over them. His interactions with the slaves in the kitchen, the way he talks to Broomhilda, hes even shown handling some of Calvin's paperwork while hes out. He

Thanks for posting this. I can see where Tarantino is coming from now and he does confirm what I was thinking, that Schultz shooting Candie is more about pride than it was moral outrage. I do think its interesting that QT would set up an entire second act around a ruse that was ultimately unnecessary.

Thanks for posting this. I can see where Tarantino is coming from now and he does confirm what I was thinking, that Schultz shooting Candie is more about pride than it was moral outrage. I do think its interesting that QT would set up an entire second act around a ruse that was ultimately unnecessary.

@avclub-9693742e95befe78f58a0f06dcaddab5:disqus He originally intended to buy Django and only shot the 2 owners after they threatened him. He himself admitted that he was taking advantage of slavery and felt guilty about it, hence him making a deal with Django.

@avclub-9693742e95befe78f58a0f06dcaddab5:disqus He originally intended to buy Django and only shot the 2 owners after they threatened him. He himself admitted that he was taking advantage of slavery and felt guilty about it, hence him making a deal with Django.

The thing is Schultz had already shown that he was willing to participate in slavery when he bought Django from the men at the beginning of the film. Now he made up for this by turning the purchase into a mutual arrangement where he would give Django his freedom if he helped him, but he showed that he was willing to