One thing I do appreciate is how they're obviously upping the quotient on both Boyd and Raylan's dangerousness this season. Both of them are usually so cool and unflappable and quick with a bon mot that it's easy to forget that Boyd is a sociopathic murderer and Raylan an unethical, emotionally abusive jerk. Both got…

Yep, I was thinking the same thing. The scene at Raylan's house especially, with the mountains towering in the background (and what appeared to be grape groves in the far distance) pretty much made me say aloud "Well, they just don't give a shit about pretending this is Kentucky anymore, do they?"

It appeared that way.

I think he was spraying a gel that was visible under UV light so that someone could later come in and mark which boxes he was to take.

Granted, this is a continuation of heavy-handed suggestion of this sort that's been going on since at least season three; hell, one season even ended with a scene of Raylan staring at his unfinished tombstone while a country singer croaked "You'll never leave Harlan alive…." on the soundtrack.

They've started up with the significant foreshadowing that Raylan may not make it out of the finale alive awfully early and laying it on awfully thick.

I thought this was a B episode at best. Rusty, awkward start—the scene with the Federali in particular felt like the show has reached the point of parodying itself. Things did get slightly stronger as the episode went on, but let's hope the showrunners have a lot more up their sleeves than they demonstrated here…

Raise your hand if you were waiting for Dewey to become a corpse from about the 45 minute mark.

The movie didn't miss out on nominations because of racism. Next.

My guess is you're Native American or Asian.

In all seriousness, that was a ridiculous snub. Probably the best performance of the year in any category.

His point was zero percent racist.

It's probably hard for me to understand because a handsomely-mounted minority-made arthouse film just won Best Picture last year. Its director was nominated. Its lead actor was nominated. Its supporting actress won. Three black actors have won Best Actor in the past 14 years. Et cetera.

The point is that 12 Years A Slave was made by minorities about minorities, and it was a bona fide work of art. Selma was made by minorities about minorities, but it's a really good movie of the week by comparison.

IMO it sounds like you want to see films about minorities nominated simply because they are films about minorities. I prefer to see films nominated when they have earned it artistically, regardless of the ethnicity involved in front of or behind the camera.

So because I want to see challenging films rewarded I'm not a person "who cares about minorities"? Get the fuck out of here with that maudlin shit.

Just so we're doing apples to apples here, compare Selma to last year's winner 12 Years A Slave and I'll think you will find the former to feel a lot more like a puff piece.

I don't acknowledge that those other two films are worthy. If anything they are less deserving than even a passable Selma. My point is that instead of saying Selma should be in there because this other crap is, I think it's more reasonable to say let's get rid of all these mediocre biopics and replace them with…

I don't care about social relevance. The Oscars are supposed to award excellence in filmmaking regardless of the subject, not competent filmmaking in one particular subject.

Sadly, this is probably true, right along with a reverse-smear campaign where Harvey-bots accuse voters of being racist if they don't reward it.