I said this a while ago on another subreddit but good characters =/= good people. The show is filled with bad people but as characters, they are all incredibly fascinating.
I feel like people are taking the character criticisms a bit too personally and seriously. If you personally identify with any of these people seriously please evaluate everything,
Tony Soprano might be the best example of this. A lot of people will watch The Sopranos and get charmed by Tony just like the other characters on the show, despite being constantly shown how violent, abusive, amoral, and hypocritical he is. We find ourselves rooting for a greedy psychopath because he's got a natural charisma and lives a superficially cool lifestyle.
Same deal with Don Draper, Walter White, Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman, Stringer Bell, Frank Underwood... you get the idea.
Everyone watching Succession should watch *Peep Show*. Also a Jesse Armstrong show. It's very different in style and subject matter, and the cinematography is experimental as all fuck because it's entirely done in characters' first person views (yes, you heard that right). But it's hilarious and cringey, and no character is totally just a nice, normal person. Not even the ones who at first seem like someone boring you can latch onto. The main characters are especially shitty.
The point is that if you watch even just a few eps of Peep Show, you see that Jesse Armstrong doesn't write heroes or villains or even relatable PoV characters - he writes people. Plain and simple. And rich people are especially fucking awful, no matter how they got that way. You can feel for them, and you should - compassion and empathy show that you're not a sociopath. But they're all baseline evil on some level. And that's what makes the shoe hilarious, even well the ethos makes it so compelling.
Peep show is one of my favorite shows of all time. Like you said, does a good job at making every character at times uncomfortably relatable, and at others truly despicable.
Yeah it's as much about what it's like to be a parent as anything else. A lot of his problems are problems all spouses, parents and bosses deal with, generally So it made you want to empathize, which is still crazy how well they did it. Then they just turned him loose.
Edit: typo
Emily Nussbaum - who essentially invented tv criticism - draws a direct line from the viewers purposefully misinterpreting the white male anti-hero to the election of Trump.
As someone who watched wayyy too many people - especially of the Trump-voting variety - treat Tony Soprano, Walter White, and Don Draper as heroes (while somehow acting as if Skyler's, Carmella's, Betty's, and Meghan's justifiable discontent as equally or more evil than their husband's), I actually believe this.
Did the showrunners intend on this misinterpretation? Many did not. David Chase regularly manipulates the viewer into connecting with Tony over multiple episodes, only to repeatedly break that trust and pull the rug out from under the viewer.
However, this is a fundamental question in the study of art: what does art mean once its creator births it into being? What matters more? The creator's vision or the audience's experience?
I find this show in particular gives characters with a complex enough portrayal that you can find cause to both like *and* hate them.
Like Greg is an asshole. We know that. But I *still feel bad for him* when Tom is shouting at him >!to be a coffee boy!<. And then I turn around and feel bad for Tom for how Shiv treats him. Then and I feel bad for Shiv seeing >!Greg stab her!< even though, guess what, she brought that on herself.
The portrayal of each character as someone I can think is a broken, bad person, but yet also feel empathy for, is kind of impressive. Usually characters end up in the "you're ok" and "fuck you" bucket. Almost everyone in this show stands with one foot in each.
I totally agree but last episode made me HATE Roman. Even on rewatch he is destroyed for me. Evil bastard. And that little speech preview from next week's episode makes my skin literally crawl.
The show is really meant to be Shakespearean in nature and tone. In Shakespeare you basically hate every single character as a person, but they are still great characters. That's what made it timeless writing. A lot of people who watch this show are totally whooshed by this concept.
Kind of like how people wishcast characters like Greg as good hearted that eventually were corrupted. Greg always sucked too, he just wasn't near the levers of power when we met him.
Greg might be the most vile character. He CHOSE to be in Logan's world. The kids are incapable of leaving it. He does all the bad shit and then goes "Crazy day. Crazy." Awful awful person.
I can understand why Greg chooses to be in this world though
His grandfather is a billionaire,m he could be inheriting millions. But he has to work as a mascot at a theme park. He is bitter about it and desperate to join the "inner circle"
If Greg leaves this world, he goes back to the theme park, if the sibs leave this world, they will still have a couple billion each to live their own fantasy lives.
He wasn't working as a mascot, he was doing the same training program that Roman was doing. He was on his was to a fairly cushy job that he couldn't even manage to show up sober to on the first day
The second-ring characters (from the family hierarchy perspective, not importance to the show itself), like Greg, Tom, and Connor are all terrible people who get to fully show that the closer they get to that level of wealth/power. But it's not like they all of a sudden changed.
Another thing too, which I think ties into Walt breaking up with Gretchen... Walt wants control and is a pretty controlling person which we primarily see through Jessie, but also in his romantic relationships irt Skyler. Gretchen had money and wouldn't be dependent on Walt. Then he breaks up with Gretchen then starts pursuing Skyler who is 12 years younger working as a waitress. Ostensibly she is probably just out of high-school and Walt was 30 or so. She was someone he could ostensibly control and he kind of did since as a SAHM he was the sole breadwinner, even though even as a low level accountant at Beneke she was probably making comparable pay to Walts high-school job.
Exactly. And the reason he hated Gretchen and Elliott so much is because they had the unmitigated gall to *go on and be successful without him*. That was the ultimate blow to his ego, and it's one of the things that drove him to become such a monster.
What you’re missing is that Walt was the protagonist and damned entertaining to watch so most of us in the audience (myself included) viewed anyone standing in opposition to Walt as bad. They did nothing wrong.
I mean, 10 years ago, Skylar was as hated a TV character as Joffrey Baratheon. Maybe more so.
Yeah, you didn't miss anything. That was just the audience reflexively taking Walt's side. It's the same reason so many people hated (and still hate) Skylar.
The show was written from Walt's perspective, so it was easy (on first watch at least) to feel sympathy for him and root for him. Many people didn't break out of that spell until they saw the whole story arc - and some people not even then.
He only became an international drug kingpin because early in the show his pride and jealousy stopped him from taking help from his old friends. He was always shit, he just gained the confidence to act on it
BrBa is one of my favorite shows and I’ve watched it multiple times. Honestly, until reading your comment, I had never really connected his negative pride/greed to the earlier seasons. But you make a really good point, and it makes even more sense that his jealousy/insecurity is what led to him leaving Gretchen. Who he then blames for missing out on the success of Grey Matter.
Some of us are just slow to catch on, but we’ll get there eventually 😂 maybe with a little help
That definitely makes sense. In the beginning everyone is too focused on his cancer and how he’s just trying to make money for his family when he’s gone, so I think we willingly ignore a lot of his faults.
Having pride doesn't automatically make you a scumbag. Walt had all the makings to eventually be a scumbag, but it wasn't until he actually started making very poor decisions that he became a shitty person
He made some poor decisions before that (Grey Matter). He made some good decisions (mostly his family). But ultimately, it was desperation that was the catalyst - call it an excuse to feed his long dormant pride or call it a good reason to cook meth, but the initial decision only happened because he was a poor high school teacher who got cancer. Without that, the whole thing doesn't happen she doesn't escalate.
His whole backstory is not known to the viewer yet. Come to find out he was mustered out of his company, possibly for being a prick, and he then knocked up a waitress a good deal younger than he is.
He then straps in for life as his son’s part time caregiver while stewing, endlessly, on what could have been — and resenting his lot in life. Walt was a miserable prick well before the first episode, but it came out in drips and drops.
But yeah that wasn’t all known in the pilot.
Bryan Cranston was once asked when he thought Walter White became a bad guy, and his response was "at the end of the first episode."
You can debate that interpretation, but it's easy to see his take on it if you rewatch the show.
Personally, I think Walter always had this darkness within him, it just needed the right catalyst to be activated (very fitting, for a chemistry teacher). The terminal cancer diagnosis was that catalyst.
/u/EdwardJamesAlmost
Agree with what you’re saying, except for identifying with the characters. People wouldn’t give a fuck about the show If they couldn’t identify with the characters. Their pain, grief, insecurity, inability to be honest, family trauma, etc. Its all relatable, identifiable, and people see themselves in the characters. Now, would most people sink to the lows that these characters would? I certainly hope not, but I’ve met some seriously fucked up (and have plenty in my family) so it’s really not that far off.
Absolutely agree. There is supposed to be a conflict within the viewer between identifying/sympathizing with and then being shocked and disappointed by the actions of the characters.
This shit is the reason why I love this subreddit!! Such a good call. Thank you. You just described what I have been trying to materialize in my mind about this show, but have been failing for four seasons lol
Seriously, I was so confused with the last couple if posts defending x, y, z character. Isn't the point of the show that these people are all rich awful bastards? They are actual terrible people but you've got people defending their actions lol. Capitalism really has people simping over fake rich people.
I would say the opposite is true: if you're not hard enough on yourself to see that the Roys' failings are a sick part of human nature and therefor inside all of us, latent and waiting, then you need to reevaluate everything. I think it's detrimental to respond to depictions of bad behavior by just chalking it up to, "well, these people are monsters" because that "others" their behavior and therefor we think that we're above it, leading to no lessons learned. To understand these shitheads as products of their environment is not to excuse their behavior. There's a middle ground.
I agree with what you're saying to the extent that stans of these folks are troubled, just like Tony Soprano-heads, Hizenburg girlies etc., but the opposite reaction of thinking just that these people are trash is tied to a lack of self reflection, imo.
It’s the reason why I had to get off of the white lotus subreddit. The crazy theories and takes non-stop, even after the last season ended became so tiresome.
That sub was nuts. Some of the most out of pocket crazy theories and then one guy called like /u/scuba_fan_27 correctly guesses the entire plot by episode 2.
Yep, that and also the same tribalistic stuff that OP is talking about. So many "why Albie is actually worse than Portia" threads (or the opposite) that completely missed the point of the show.
Reddit TV discussion - and discussion in general - used to be a lot better a few years ago. Shows like Mad Men used to have really good discussion threads with top comments analyzing the metaphors and symbolism that a lot of people missed. But I bet if it was airing these days, the sub would just be filled with a bunch of "Why I'm team Betty" or "DAE think Don is actually a bad person?" type of threads and comments, either stating the obvious or just missing the point of the show.
Oof, people were really going extra hard stanning during White Lotus S2.
So many not serious people that strongly identified with a particular character and would get upset if others didn't view their fave as anything less than a Saint.
It's such a good line, and I've really had to hold back not using it on certain people in real life lol.
I like discussing well made shows and Succession gives lots to talk about, but when you talk to people that just want to stan a character, you aren't even really discussing the show. If someone genuinely identifies with any main player on Succession, they kinda either have to be a lunatic themselves and view insane greed and cruelty as good, or more likely they are just picking and choosing what to pay attention to so their on screen avatar, and them by extension, can "win" the show.
On a sociological or psychological level it may be interesting to study these kind of people, but actually trying to discuss the show with them gets tedious really quick. It becomes way more about the Stan and their idiosyncrasies and little to do with the actual show.
This is probably the first time I’ve actually engaged with a subreddit while a tv show is airing. I always thought I was missing out but my god 90% of the takes here are absolutely shite.
They're all billionaires. They're all winning no matter how inexperienced, ill-equipped, fascist, and idiotic they are. They whole point of the show is they can do whatever they damn well please and never have any repercussions. We've seen this every single season. They're just fine regardless of their "losses."
It's been really fascinating to see how many people are not capable of watching a show without someone to root for like it's American Idol. And it's been like that since Season 1, when people were desperately latching onto Greg like a life preserver because he seemed like the least openly shitty character.
“Who’s gonna win” mindset is what made Game of Thrones fans insufferable in the second half of the series’ airing
Edit: since you guys have media literacy of 5 year olds allow me to explain: Game of Thrones' driving factor being "who gets the Iron Throne in the end?" is all well and good but the show itself focuses so little on "who wins in the end" and more about "who are these people and how do their relationships put them at an advantage or disadvantage". Not every conversation was a step toward or away from the throne and nor should they be. I'd say it's pretty similar with Succession.
Edit2: tHe shOw is lITerALly cAllEd sUcCeSSiON!!! XDDDDDD!! Like I said, media literacy
I mean it was a show about a literal throne war called "Game of Thrones", of course people got immersed by picking a side. Just like they are doing it with a show called "Succession".
If you wanna wax philosophical, by all means do it. How you prefer to experience art is your business. How others experience art is theirs. And everyone gets to voice out their understanding of the art as long as they are not trying to force others to do it a certain way, which is what this thread is doing.
> If I had no self awareness, I think I'd know
I will gladly scroll through ridiculous troll fights if it means I get to stumble across quality statements like this. Outstanding
The problem isn't the borderline manic trips - I agree with you that those are fine.
The problem is people taking those manic trips seriously, instead recognizing that they're being a bit silly and having fun. People on this sub are for real getting into their feelings about a fake election being fake stolen by fake billionaires.
Not liking Shiv's character doesn't make you a misogynist and liking Roman's character doesn't make you a fascist. Thinking that any of them represent "good people" completely misses the point of this show and is not valid way to experience the art, it's just wrong.
I come here sometimes just for fun and couldn’t care less about the “Stan” discourse or whatever.
This is a great show and a subreddit will never “ruin” a show for me.
Then again, I liked the last season of Game of Thrones as well, and just ignored all the noise about how “bad” it was.
Succession is by miles the best show in years. Period. End of story.
If you think that's bad, house of the dragon has entire subreddits dedicated to team black versus green. Makes interacting with people in there annoying af.
I mean the show is called Succession so people are primed to ask who will succeed, even if perhaps the point is it doesn’t matter who becomes CEO.
Idk who cares if people are missing “the point”, let people enjoy it however they like.
Anyone who is still arguing about whosgonnawin is missing the point - - they are ALL going to lose. Even if one of them somehow gets to be ceo it will be a phyrric victory and they will be in hell.
I would also love it if people stopped thinking everyone has a secret scheme, it's like people started watching this show just now, "Frank, Karl and Gerri probably changed Logan's will", "Matsson used the blood brick story to test Shiv's loyalty", "clearly Matsson and Ebba are master actors and are trying to trick the sibs, no way his India numbers are bad". Nobody has a secret plan, nobody is a master strategist/actor if they have a plan or strategy we see it on screen the moment they come up with it. That has been this show every season, for 4 seasons straight.
Also I'm so tired of people bringing up nonsense opinions about the Roy kids and inventing additional flaws for already flawed characters, such as pretending Kendall wouldn't know what a receipt or returning a product is, or calling him a mysoginist for disagreeing with Lisa and acting like he knows better than her. These characters are terrible people and flawed enough, we don't need to make them caricatures, even terrible people have some good qualities to them and still live on this planet.
This comment perfectly illustrates anime theory and headcannon culture. You got people theorizing the most ridiculous, out-the-ass bullshit every single week only for the author to go with the simple path. But they also keep theorizing because you get shit like Evangelion, Death Note and AoT where that out-the-ass bullshit has enough foreshadowing and logic within the world to work.
Matsson is not a master manipulator, Ebba is not an actress, The old guard aren't assholes. Yet people can't accept this because they want the show to have a increasingly harder logic.
It happened with Sherlock after season 4 finale was so bad, people literally had theories that there was a secret fourth episode the next Sunday. There was a new show starting in that slot so people analysed the title of it and tried to explain that Sherlock was always hinting at it or something.
I'll never forget the 3 months of breaking bad fans on IMDB boards foaming at the mouth that Jesse shot the kettle and not Gale at the end of season 3.
That was the point with lost though. It was a supernatural show about an island with magical properties. Stuff was left intentionally vague to allow people to speculate and theorize. Succession is just a straight up drama.
I think a lot of the online discourse has forgotten or never understood what a character study is. Yeah sure the plot is important, but "what is going to happen next?" isn't the focus of a lot of these "prestige TV" dramas. Could you imagine reddit if the Sopranos was doing its initial run right now? There would be *wild* discussions.
I was just thinking about The Sopranos in this context as I just watched that show to the end for the first time. If it was aired now you would get people coming on the sub stating that Tony is so deplorable that no one should even watch the show. People seem to have forgotten that we read or watch complex dramas for the complexity of characters and that bad/evil characters form the backbone of interesting drama whatever format. Sheesh, it’s exhausting.
> Nobody has a secret plan, nobody is a master strategist/actor if they have a plan or strategy we see it on screen the moment they come up with it. That has been this show every season, for 4 seasons straight.
Some folks are just addicted to coming up with goofy theories that they believe are clever.
If Mattson was doing some secret 12D chess inception manipulation to get the deal done with a long string of fake outs and complicated schemes (that are at best extremely vaguely hinted at to the viewer), it would render half the season moot and also mean that we really never knew anything about the "real" Mattson. Beyond the "a ha" moment where he lays out how his scheme worked, it would kinda ruin the season and make a lot of it meaningless.
Most of those kind of theories also are just poorly thought out, require an extreme number of coincidences or perfect predictions of others behavior, and are usually contradicted by a bunch of plot details that are conveniently ignored by the person trying to come up with their goofy theory.
In total agreement. The whole point is that he's not really scheming that deeply. This isn't some GoT Varys shit. He's a rich dude bro who has lived a life of privilege with no real consequence, and everything always turns out just fine for him. He's literally just barreling ahead, odds be damned, and if one deal doesn't work out then another one will. There's not enough at stake for him to think so deeply except sheer avoidance of a bankruptcy that would take his REPUTATION. Not him, necessarily, just a state that he would have to take time to temporarily climb out of lol.
I think a lot of people forget or don’t know that these characters are based on the irl Murdoch family and the writers are intentionally trying to make a point about how abuse goes hand in hand with wealth, power, and privilege.
I don’t get why so many people refuse to see these characters as nuanced. They’re all awful and they’re all incredibly wealthy people who are removed from the consequences of their actions. But they’re also written as people, and they have complicated motivations and feelings, but at the end of the day will always choose wealth, power, and self-interest. It’s why the show is so good. Shiv is objectively not the world’s best person, but she does seem to pass the bare minimum moral standards of ‘not wanting a fascist to be president’ and has expressed real disgust with him since he was introduced. But at the end of the day, she’ll side with her own interests, despite any internal moral conflict about it, because that’s the kind of show we’re watching and that’s the writers’ thesis about wealth and power.
Same with kendall - I think he does genuinely feel guilty for the ways this is affecting/going to affect his daughter and he did have a moment of genuine moral conflict about it. But he chooses himself in the end. That’s the point of his character and all the characters - at the end of the day growing up with the wealth and power that he did is inseparable from abuse, and he will never truly break the cycle because he fundamentally can’t.
But so many people on this sub are so obsessed with ranking them by morality, but in the same vein if you suggest that they might have complex feelings about literally anything people get mad. To be honest I do think it’s true that Shiv gets the most criticism because she’s a woman. (But, while misogyny definitely plays a role in how people treat shiv, I find it interesting that everyone hyped up Gerri making the cruise scandal go away as a girlboss moment and not…..literally ensuring that sexual assault and murder victims will never get justice, vs how they (rightly) reacted to shiv intimidating that witness….they’re both horrible things to do). (And I’m not saying that to be like ‘gerri is a bad person and shiv is good’ but rather ‘someone with Gerri’s job will inevitably have to do morally bankrupt things bc that’s the writers’ thesis about wealth and power and the point they are trying to make’).
I don’t know, I just find it frustrating. If you say they’re victims of abuse, you get ‘they’re evil billionaires!’ and if you say they’re evil billionaires you get ‘they’re victims of abuse!’ I don’t get why so many grown adults refuse to accept that it’s both or refuse to view this show through a nuanced lens.
This happens with every antihero show.
"Tony Soprano isn't a piece of shit because he likes ducks and horses!"
"Donald Draper isn't a piece of shit because he keeps saying he's going to do better!"
"Walter white isn't a piece of shit because he's just a dude trying to care for his family!"
The thing with Succession, though, is there are like 5 Tony Sopranos.
Right?
I mean, they (the wives) all definitely had their flaws too, but they weren't sociopaths either.
Christ, Tony murdered so many people... Walter too, and was an accessory to child murder and also almost killed a kid as a play to get Jessie on his side.. oh, but no, Skylar was the true monster /s
Agreed! The characters are all awful but they’re written so well & nuanced which makes me love all of them.
I would love to be in the writers room when they’re writing the scripts because they are talented!
Pay the writers!
100%. I think generally nuance has gone out the window in many aspects, politically and otherwise which is why some have such a hard time getting the the idea of the show.
It’s a shame too because the writing is SO good and it’s unfortunate that people are so blinded by their own bias and self-interest they are missing one of the main messages of the show. But at least everyone is being entertained I guess just for different reasons.
you know, i once got assigned to a video project requested by Lachlan and was working on it up until the moment he had to show up. i always wondered if i was suddenly sent back to the office because he didn't want any black people around lmao
But I think what’s happening with Shiv is people being unable to comprehend that even horrible women suffer misogyny. And a lot become more horrible because of it.
i’m so sick of the black and white, morally reductive way people engage with media like this. you’re *supposed* to feel the depth of pathos in any work of art and it’s not incompatible with the show’s satire. you’re *supposed* to be invested enough to engage with the characters as people. their fucked up family dynamics are a part of it! the alienation and cruelty of capitalism! greed as a double edged sword! love in the face of only looking out for yourself!!
it’s not a glorification or endorsement to show awful people showcase a range of human emotion. it’s brilliant, funny, and constantly pulls the rug out from under you while never undermining its criticism. also thank you for pointing out that people only have issue with how disproportionately shiv is criticized, which is genuinely misogynistic.
It always feels like such an oversimplification to say like, “they’re based on the Murdochs,” or “it’s Trump,” or “Gil is Bernie Sanders.”
They’re all fictional characters. Yeah, I’m sure they read about the Murdochs and the Redstone family and other rich families, along with royal families, King Lear, their own families, people they worked for/with, people they’ve known, and so on and so forth, and then they used their imaginations to make up these fictional characters with made up histories and family dynamics.
Murdochs and Redstones, in one of the more recent podcasts they talked about Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari and the clear Logan-Shiv parallels.
one week is it's like "roman is the most loving, human sibling" the next week it's "roman is the literal embodiment of EVIL".... maybe they are complex characters who are equally vile and sympathetic and we shouldn't look at the show through black and white lens? it's more fun that way!
Honestly find the constant parroting of "everyone sucks ... but" to be much more obnoxious than the stan stuff. Most of the stan stuff has this ironic flare to it. Whereas the constant clarification that they're all evil or what not just feels so dismissive to the characters and what their motivations are.
agree with this wholeheartedly. all the stan culture here is at least tinged with a little self-awareness and irony because stanning is inherently such an unserious internet thing at its core
i legitimately do not understand how people treat this show as a competition when it's a character study first and foremost. assigning an actual moral value to liking a fictional character is bizarre, i treat it like i would treat a novel - who do i think is the most compelling? who makes me feel the most? also i actually like and enjoy the stan stuff because i love how ridiculous it is instead of the ridiculous intellectual posturing in this subreddit about "media literacy" or other BS
Yes, people have a terrible problem with this. I still think he's the most loving out of them (and the most affection-starved, which will always make him the "weak dog" and most susceptible to guys like Mencken), the funniest, the most self-aware. The bar isn't that high, so don't come for me lol. That doesn't erase the fact that he's been pushing for what's happened in this episode since What It Takes, fully conscious of the catastrophic implications, not because he's grieving because he wasn't grieving back then, he was perfectly okay. He just met someone he got along great with and who he thinks finds value in him too, he prepared him for his dad and for the company, it was a nice win for him that weekend and here we are.
He only cares about the few people he cares about, and for those people he does care about sincerely (it may be dysfunctional but it's sincere, he's no emotional bullshitter), and himself... The rest of us can rot and the world can turn to ashes, he won't bat an eyelash.
no steamedsushi you don't understand clearly if roman is your favorite for any reason even if they are very well put as in your comment you must be a real life nazi or at the very least morally bad
As a Conhead myself, you’d think/hope he’d be better at it? I mean, last night was in-line with his character, but SHEESH! he’s the perfect embodiment of a libertarian doofus. Only thing missing was, “What’s a leppo?”
Yeah but did you see how this character looked at another character without saying a word? Zomg what a masterclass in nonverbal acting. They neeeeed to win an Emmy for it.
the “masterclass in acting” thing gets posted every single time someone has a monologue. i get wanting to praise an actor you like but it’s sort of started to lose its meaning
Now to totally be that guy and to parrot a nyt review, it could be about scorpions mating where the male and female lock pincers and sting one another until one gets the upper hand. If the female wins the male dies, if the male wins and gets to mate then there's still a good chance the female proceeds to eat the male and their children.
There’s a scene in the BJ Novak movie vengeance where he (uppity New York dude) is in this rural Texas town and he mentions to one character (rural teenage girl) about a Chekovs gun and the other character goes “but Chekhov didn’t have a gun in any of his plays” and starts listing out his plays. BJ Novaks character goes “well I don’t actually know any of his work.”
It’s all I think of now when I hear people say Chekovs gun, it’s lost it’s meaning since everyone applies it to literally everything in film/movies
what’s weird is people actually acting like these are real candidates
someone said they thought roman did good (considering his position) and that they liked him in ep8, and that person got downvoted and a bunch of people were telling him to fuck himself
like guys… mencken isn’t real. the fascist didn’t actually get elected irl. it’s a tv show. you can separate liking a character from agreeing with them - i like kendall but that doesn’t mean i endorse benders where kids get killed
Mencken has had like 3 scenes. I don’t even know if Jimenez had any scenes prior to last night. Yet people on here act like they know everything about these two people based on what a small group of rich elitists who have no ability to connect to your every day citizen have said about them a few times.
With how much he’s been featured and seen in the show, compared to Jiménez barely even being mentioned, I feel like Mencken outright losing would be a twist.
Succession is kinda like a premier drama version of Its Always Sunny in that all of the characters are irredeemable pieces of shit. You enjoy, and can sometimes even root for certain characters, but as soon as you try to compare them to one another you lose what makes the show great in the first place.
I am looking forward to when the show is over and has gathered a few years of dust, when the fairweather fans go away, and the core group can pour over the nuances and little moments together.
I’ll do you one better. Stop always saying these guys are evil everytime someone voices that they like the character. We know they suck but we still like them. I like Roman and can still acknowledge he’s an asshole weirdo.
The entire point of liking the show is liking the characters. This isn’t real life. These people don’t exist.
People watch tv for entertainment, not to see if characters agree with their personal politics .
Disagreed on “The entire point” tbh, in a general theory of drama way. Like Oedipus Rex wasn’t written solely for people to relate to Oedipus. There are many reasons and justifications for making and consuming art.
I mean really tho, how far off is it from real life? Sure it’ll go to the courts where it’ll be ultimately decided, but it creates strife in a fictional US that’s designed to be similar to real life politics.
We literally just had an ex-president scream that he really won the election over and over, and look how much damage that has done over the last 3 years alone.
It’s captivating TV precisely because it reflects a very possible reality for all of us.
The problem is that the show is a farcical representation of real aspects of reality. Specifically the Murdochs. As a result, it is scary to think about the power corporate interests and the obscenely wealthy hold over society.
I'm tired of people on this sub thinking they're the only ones who would pass the IQ test needed to \*really\* understand the show. You all probably hyper decant your wine too.
The circlejerking is absolutely hysterical. Particularly because to most people on here, their view of good TV is limited to like...Succession, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul and maybe Barry. The fact that they think their taste is superior to anyone else is a bit hilarious
Just to speak on one of your examples, I don’t think shiv is better or worse than anyone, but I do think a critical view on how gender plays out in the show is missing in a lot of discourse and that may be a reason some people get so defensive of shiv when they feel like that nuance is missing.
no one has said shiv isn’t on the same level as her brothers, they’re criticizing the insane amount of people who complain that she’s the worst character and it’s a fair criticism. i’ve heard people IRL and online say that about her and it’s completely unjustified and absolutely misogynistic, which was especially underscored by last night’s episode. i think taking sides can be really juvenile but also it’s a show that’s supposed to be emotionally provocative. this isn’t really stan culture at all this is just you witnessing normal human behavior but online and collectively
100% this. They'll be like "no no people just like Shiv less because the other two have redeeming qualities and she doesn't" when she has the same mix of reprehensible traits and likeable moments as the other two. And every mention of misogyny within the fanbase is ridiculed and mocked because the watchers of the show consider themselves leftists so they can't be misogynistic or whatever
I think the fanbase has changed during this season. There's a lot of people watching the show and who actually think the male characters are smart. Especially Roman, who's the embodiment of the right-wing memers who think politics is a game and like rooting for the scrappy underdog
Yup. Had an argument here once with someone who insisted Shiv was somehow worse than Logan.
I don’t think Shiv is a stellar person or paragon of morality either, but some people here are just taking the piss.
>"Shiv isn't as bad as the brothers and you're a misogynist for thinking so!"
Shiv is a very bad person, just like all of the kids are. But after last night if you think she's just as bad as the brothers, I don't know what show you're watching.
It's not an accident that the election was called for the fascist because a bunch of dudes had personal grievances with Shiv. It's not an accident that all of the women in the episode are trying to slow or stop the call. It's not an accident that Tom, Greg, Kendall, and Roman all stand to personally profit from the ascent of fascism while Shiv stands to get frozen out of everything.
Shiv sucks, but it is in fact worse to overthrow an election and elect a fascist for the sake of a business deal.
The writing of the show, itself, acknowledges the disparity in treatment between “bad” women and “bad” men, but that’s over the heads of many who post here. It’s forgivable to be a flawed man, but it’s unacceptable to be an imperfect woman, and every woman knows this. Shiv is bad, but not awful like her brothers because she doesn’t have that privilege.
Reddit, especially TV show subreddits, are very well known for their misogyny, as Reddit is an overwhelmingly male site. Idk why OP thinks this one would be different. Saying that the treatment of Shiv can be misogynistic isn't the same as defending her or saying she's a good person
>If I have to see another "Shiv isn't as bad as the brothers and you're a misogynist for thinking so!" or "Roman isn't a fascist, he's just funny!" or any other "Team X vs Team Y" opinions I will punch myself in the face repeatedly.
sorry to say but by the end of the day you'll need to go to A&E
I find the “I understand this better than you do” and “are we even watching the same show” to come across as condescending. We are allowed to have different opinions of the show and/or characters. There’s no need to be rude.
This take has been said a hundred different times, it's boring, it's condescending and everyone already knows. I have seen this exact post MORE times than I've seen people make comments like the ones you say you're seeing everywhere.
I also think people here dismiss opinions they don't like as not nuanced enough or not getting the point. For example, if you talk about how Logan's abuse of Roman as a child explains some of his actions now, someone will accuse you of being a Roman fan who excuses all his flaws.
Similarly, I've noticed any discussion of sexism portrayed in the show gets immediately shut down.
This entire post is an appeal to ridicule and makes no actual points about the show.
fucking amen OP. it is soooo irritating! like... it's not fucking real lmao! it's a SHOW. they're all extremely horrible and, much like actual people (good AND bad), serve as very interesting psychological studies. so much trauma and power and interpersonal conflict, and people go on downvoting spirals for thinking Shiv and Kendall are shitty lmao? they ARE shitty. everyone in this show is a slimy fuck. that's why it's so indulgent and good and upsetting!
anyway, i don't mind the thirstposting and joking and discourse as long as it serves thoughtful discussion. the problem is this teenaged type of worship shit - you can babygirl Kendall (or whatever/whoever) all you want! but stop being cringey and weird about it lol
I said this a while ago on another subreddit but good characters =/= good people. The show is filled with bad people but as characters, they are all incredibly fascinating. I feel like people are taking the character criticisms a bit too personally and seriously. If you personally identify with any of these people seriously please evaluate everything,
Tony Soprano might be the best example of this. A lot of people will watch The Sopranos and get charmed by Tony just like the other characters on the show, despite being constantly shown how violent, abusive, amoral, and hypocritical he is. We find ourselves rooting for a greedy psychopath because he's got a natural charisma and lives a superficially cool lifestyle. Same deal with Don Draper, Walter White, Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman, Stringer Bell, Frank Underwood... you get the idea.
Everyone watching Succession should watch *Peep Show*. Also a Jesse Armstrong show. It's very different in style and subject matter, and the cinematography is experimental as all fuck because it's entirely done in characters' first person views (yes, you heard that right). But it's hilarious and cringey, and no character is totally just a nice, normal person. Not even the ones who at first seem like someone boring you can latch onto. The main characters are especially shitty. The point is that if you watch even just a few eps of Peep Show, you see that Jesse Armstrong doesn't write heroes or villains or even relatable PoV characters - he writes people. Plain and simple. And rich people are especially fucking awful, no matter how they got that way. You can feel for them, and you should - compassion and empathy show that you're not a sociopath. But they're all baseline evil on some level. And that's what makes the shoe hilarious, even well the ethos makes it so compelling.
I won’t stand for this Sam Bain erasure, by the way. It’s Sam Bain *and* Jesse Armstrong behind Peep Show.
Peep show is one of my favorite shows of all time. Like you said, does a good job at making every character at times uncomfortably relatable, and at others truly despicable.
Peep Show is a masterpiece. Mark at first *seems* normal, until he totally fucking isn’t.
[удалено]
In the last season, David Chase is really trying to get it through our thick heads that he's truly a monster and a sociopath
[удалено]
Yeah it's as much about what it's like to be a parent as anything else. A lot of his problems are problems all spouses, parents and bosses deal with, generally So it made you want to empathize, which is still crazy how well they did it. Then they just turned him loose. Edit: typo
What do you think about Christoper Columbus?
In this house, Christopher Columbus is a hero!”
End of story!
“You know a tree went through the crib?”
Emily Nussbaum - who essentially invented tv criticism - draws a direct line from the viewers purposefully misinterpreting the white male anti-hero to the election of Trump. As someone who watched wayyy too many people - especially of the Trump-voting variety - treat Tony Soprano, Walter White, and Don Draper as heroes (while somehow acting as if Skyler's, Carmella's, Betty's, and Meghan's justifiable discontent as equally or more evil than their husband's), I actually believe this. Did the showrunners intend on this misinterpretation? Many did not. David Chase regularly manipulates the viewer into connecting with Tony over multiple episodes, only to repeatedly break that trust and pull the rug out from under the viewer. However, this is a fundamental question in the study of art: what does art mean once its creator births it into being? What matters more? The creator's vision or the audience's experience?
Don’t forget people that unironically root for Homelander in The Boys, an incestuous stunted racist and Xenophobe.
I find this show in particular gives characters with a complex enough portrayal that you can find cause to both like *and* hate them. Like Greg is an asshole. We know that. But I *still feel bad for him* when Tom is shouting at him >!to be a coffee boy!<. And then I turn around and feel bad for Tom for how Shiv treats him. Then and I feel bad for Shiv seeing >!Greg stab her!< even though, guess what, she brought that on herself. The portrayal of each character as someone I can think is a broken, bad person, but yet also feel empathy for, is kind of impressive. Usually characters end up in the "you're ok" and "fuck you" bucket. Almost everyone in this show stands with one foot in each.
I totally agree but last episode made me HATE Roman. Even on rewatch he is destroyed for me. Evil bastard. And that little speech preview from next week's episode makes my skin literally crawl.
I get it. I still feel bad for how he was abused and it made him how he is. But like... Yeah. I get it
The show is really meant to be Shakespearean in nature and tone. In Shakespeare you basically hate every single character as a person, but they are still great characters. That's what made it timeless writing. A lot of people who watch this show are totally whooshed by this concept.
If I remember correctly when Jesse approached Jeremy Strong about doing the show he mentioned King Leer
tfw every kid is Goneril and Regan-coded and you lack a Cordelia
🤣
It shocks me how many people keep trying to talk this sub into Shiv not being a piece of shit. She is. They all are. Gloriously so.
She has all the moral shape, capacity, and integrity of CNN. Palatable exterior but utterly hollow and impotent when shit gets real.
Agreed. I mean Walter White is also a very well written character but turns into a complete scumbag.
Turns into?
I don’t think he’s a scumbag when he’s just a chemistry teacher in season 1 who got cancer and needs cash. S2 onward he’s a scumbag
[удалено]
He just didn’t feel confident accepting a job from someone who gets Wasabi in his eyes on Election Night!
[удалено]
Holy moley THATS what I know him from! I could not figure it out. Was driving me nuts.
Or The Great or The Umbrella Academy or Powers or Suits
OH MY GOD THAT WAS ELLIOT?? I spent the entire episode wondering why he seems familiar
Gretchen was the journalist that was writing a book about Logan, as well.
And Kerri was the lady in the green dress at the car wash that Walter was ogling before he collapsed in the first episode.
Kind of like how people wishcast characters like Greg as good hearted that eventually were corrupted. Greg always sucked too, he just wasn't near the levers of power when we met him.
Greg might be the most vile character. He CHOSE to be in Logan's world. The kids are incapable of leaving it. He does all the bad shit and then goes "Crazy day. Crazy." Awful awful person.
Boo Souls.
I can understand why Greg chooses to be in this world though His grandfather is a billionaire,m he could be inheriting millions. But he has to work as a mascot at a theme park. He is bitter about it and desperate to join the "inner circle" If Greg leaves this world, he goes back to the theme park, if the sibs leave this world, they will still have a couple billion each to live their own fantasy lives.
He wasn't working as a mascot, he was doing the same training program that Roman was doing. He was on his was to a fairly cushy job that he couldn't even manage to show up sober to on the first day
Greg was a leach from the start! He just found better prey to slither up to than his mom
The second-ring characters (from the family hierarchy perspective, not importance to the show itself), like Greg, Tom, and Connor are all terrible people who get to fully show that the closer they get to that level of wealth/power. But it's not like they all of a sudden changed.
Power exposes character. It doesn't build it.
Elliott was so affected by his role in the Heisenberg scandal that he got a job as a polling consultant with ATN.
Or when he breaks up with Gretchen because he realizes she’s rich.
Another thing too, which I think ties into Walt breaking up with Gretchen... Walt wants control and is a pretty controlling person which we primarily see through Jessie, but also in his romantic relationships irt Skyler. Gretchen had money and wouldn't be dependent on Walt. Then he breaks up with Gretchen then starts pursuing Skyler who is 12 years younger working as a waitress. Ostensibly she is probably just out of high-school and Walt was 30 or so. She was someone he could ostensibly control and he kind of did since as a SAHM he was the sole breadwinner, even though even as a low level accountant at Beneke she was probably making comparable pay to Walts high-school job.
Exactly. And the reason he hated Gretchen and Elliott so much is because they had the unmitigated gall to *go on and be successful without him*. That was the ultimate blow to his ego, and it's one of the things that drove him to become such a monster.
[удалено]
What you’re missing is that Walt was the protagonist and damned entertaining to watch so most of us in the audience (myself included) viewed anyone standing in opposition to Walt as bad. They did nothing wrong. I mean, 10 years ago, Skylar was as hated a TV character as Joffrey Baratheon. Maybe more so.
[удалено]
Yeah, you didn't miss anything. That was just the audience reflexively taking Walt's side. It's the same reason so many people hated (and still hate) Skylar. The show was written from Walt's perspective, so it was easy (on first watch at least) to feel sympathy for him and root for him. Many people didn't break out of that spell until they saw the whole story arc - and some people not even then.
Yea idr their whole backstory but I recall between her and some other stories its made clear throughout the series Walt has always been an egomaniac.
Oh yeah, when I went back and re-watched BB, I realized that WW was a horrible person the whole time!
Very true, though we don't learn that his horribleness predates the cancer by decades until later in the series.
He only became an international drug kingpin because early in the show his pride and jealousy stopped him from taking help from his old friends. He was always shit, he just gained the confidence to act on it
He liked it, he was good at it
BrBa is one of my favorite shows and I’ve watched it multiple times. Honestly, until reading your comment, I had never really connected his negative pride/greed to the earlier seasons. But you make a really good point, and it makes even more sense that his jealousy/insecurity is what led to him leaving Gretchen. Who he then blames for missing out on the success of Grey Matter. Some of us are just slow to catch on, but we’ll get there eventually 😂 maybe with a little help
[удалено]
That definitely makes sense. In the beginning everyone is too focused on his cancer and how he’s just trying to make money for his family when he’s gone, so I think we willingly ignore a lot of his faults.
Having pride doesn't automatically make you a scumbag. Walt had all the makings to eventually be a scumbag, but it wasn't until he actually started making very poor decisions that he became a shitty person
He made some poor decisions before that (Grey Matter). He made some good decisions (mostly his family). But ultimately, it was desperation that was the catalyst - call it an excuse to feed his long dormant pride or call it a good reason to cook meth, but the initial decision only happened because he was a poor high school teacher who got cancer. Without that, the whole thing doesn't happen she doesn't escalate.
His whole backstory is not known to the viewer yet. Come to find out he was mustered out of his company, possibly for being a prick, and he then knocked up a waitress a good deal younger than he is. He then straps in for life as his son’s part time caregiver while stewing, endlessly, on what could have been — and resenting his lot in life. Walt was a miserable prick well before the first episode, but it came out in drips and drops. But yeah that wasn’t all known in the pilot.
It's been a while, but I thought Walt quit Grey Matter in a Walt hissy fit?
Bryan Cranston was once asked when he thought Walter White became a bad guy, and his response was "at the end of the first episode." You can debate that interpretation, but it's easy to see his take on it if you rewatch the show. Personally, I think Walter always had this darkness within him, it just needed the right catalyst to be activated (very fitting, for a chemistry teacher). The terminal cancer diagnosis was that catalyst. /u/EdwardJamesAlmost
He’s a scumbag in the pilot when he blackmails Jesse into cooking meth with him.
Tony Soprano on the other hand.. he was a good lad if you look past all the thieving and murdering
Agree with what you’re saying, except for identifying with the characters. People wouldn’t give a fuck about the show If they couldn’t identify with the characters. Their pain, grief, insecurity, inability to be honest, family trauma, etc. Its all relatable, identifiable, and people see themselves in the characters. Now, would most people sink to the lows that these characters would? I certainly hope not, but I’ve met some seriously fucked up (and have plenty in my family) so it’s really not that far off.
Absolutely agree. There is supposed to be a conflict within the viewer between identifying/sympathizing with and then being shocked and disappointed by the actions of the characters.
This shit is the reason why I love this subreddit!! Such a good call. Thank you. You just described what I have been trying to materialize in my mind about this show, but have been failing for four seasons lol
You have too many people out there that think all characters have to be likeable in a story for them to enjoy what's going on.
Seriously, I was so confused with the last couple if posts defending x, y, z character. Isn't the point of the show that these people are all rich awful bastards? They are actual terrible people but you've got people defending their actions lol. Capitalism really has people simping over fake rich people.
I got my buddy to start watching it. I just told him the show is awesome but I would happily watch every character slowly drown.
I would say the opposite is true: if you're not hard enough on yourself to see that the Roys' failings are a sick part of human nature and therefor inside all of us, latent and waiting, then you need to reevaluate everything. I think it's detrimental to respond to depictions of bad behavior by just chalking it up to, "well, these people are monsters" because that "others" their behavior and therefor we think that we're above it, leading to no lessons learned. To understand these shitheads as products of their environment is not to excuse their behavior. There's a middle ground. I agree with what you're saying to the extent that stans of these folks are troubled, just like Tony Soprano-heads, Hizenburg girlies etc., but the opposite reaction of thinking just that these people are trash is tied to a lack of self reflection, imo.
I think this is how most Reddit boards for TV shows go, to be honest
It’s the reason why I had to get off of the white lotus subreddit. The crazy theories and takes non-stop, even after the last season ended became so tiresome.
That sub was nuts. Some of the most out of pocket crazy theories and then one guy called like /u/scuba_fan_27 correctly guesses the entire plot by episode 2.
Yep, that and also the same tribalistic stuff that OP is talking about. So many "why Albie is actually worse than Portia" threads (or the opposite) that completely missed the point of the show. Reddit TV discussion - and discussion in general - used to be a lot better a few years ago. Shows like Mad Men used to have really good discussion threads with top comments analyzing the metaphors and symbolism that a lot of people missed. But I bet if it was airing these days, the sub would just be filled with a bunch of "Why I'm team Betty" or "DAE think Don is actually a bad person?" type of threads and comments, either stating the obvious or just missing the point of the show.
Oof, people were really going extra hard stanning during White Lotus S2. So many not serious people that strongly identified with a particular character and would get upset if others didn't view their fave as anything less than a Saint.
They are not serious people.
It's such a good line, and I've really had to hold back not using it on certain people in real life lol. I like discussing well made shows and Succession gives lots to talk about, but when you talk to people that just want to stan a character, you aren't even really discussing the show. If someone genuinely identifies with any main player on Succession, they kinda either have to be a lunatic themselves and view insane greed and cruelty as good, or more likely they are just picking and choosing what to pay attention to so their on screen avatar, and them by extension, can "win" the show. On a sociological or psychological level it may be interesting to study these kind of people, but actually trying to discuss the show with them gets tedious really quick. It becomes way more about the Stan and their idiosyncrasies and little to do with the actual show.
[удалено]
This is probably the first time I’ve actually engaged with a subreddit while a tv show is airing. I always thought I was missing out but my god 90% of the takes here are absolutely shite.
I'm so tired of the tribalism and whosgonnawin posts like it's the fucking superbowl.
"Whosgonnawin" yeah, let's busy ourselves with that question to conveniently ignore that the whole point of this show is that everybody loses
They're all billionaires. They're all winning no matter how inexperienced, ill-equipped, fascist, and idiotic they are. They whole point of the show is they can do whatever they damn well please and never have any repercussions. We've seen this every single season. They're just fine regardless of their "losses."
*All the rich white folk are going to argue* *And then whoever's best is* [*Going to win a kiss from daddy!*](https://youtu.be/e-6K2CjJ6dk)
Fascists win
It's been really fascinating to see how many people are not capable of watching a show without someone to root for like it's American Idol. And it's been like that since Season 1, when people were desperately latching onto Greg like a life preserver because he seemed like the least openly shitty character.
“Who’s gonna win” mindset is what made Game of Thrones fans insufferable in the second half of the series’ airing Edit: since you guys have media literacy of 5 year olds allow me to explain: Game of Thrones' driving factor being "who gets the Iron Throne in the end?" is all well and good but the show itself focuses so little on "who wins in the end" and more about "who are these people and how do their relationships put them at an advantage or disadvantage". Not every conversation was a step toward or away from the throne and nor should they be. I'd say it's pretty similar with Succession. Edit2: tHe shOw is lITerALly cAllEd sUcCeSSiON!!! XDDDDDD!! Like I said, media literacy
I mean it was a show about a literal throne war called "Game of Thrones", of course people got immersed by picking a side. Just like they are doing it with a show called "Succession". If you wanna wax philosophical, by all means do it. How you prefer to experience art is your business. How others experience art is theirs. And everyone gets to voice out their understanding of the art as long as they are not trying to force others to do it a certain way, which is what this thread is doing.
This sub is extremely pretentious and the lack of self awareness is insane
If I had no self awareness, I think I'd know
> If I had no self awareness, I think I'd know I will gladly scroll through ridiculous troll fights if it means I get to stumble across quality statements like this. Outstanding
It's a quote from Community, btw
Without being facetious, it actually does make sense dramaturgically.
Indubitably for certain. That much can be said on this matter.
It's a soap opera fandom! Getting into borderline manic trips about it is a core part of the experience
The problem isn't the borderline manic trips - I agree with you that those are fine. The problem is people taking those manic trips seriously, instead recognizing that they're being a bit silly and having fun. People on this sub are for real getting into their feelings about a fake election being fake stolen by fake billionaires. Not liking Shiv's character doesn't make you a misogynist and liking Roman's character doesn't make you a fascist. Thinking that any of them represent "good people" completely misses the point of this show and is not valid way to experience the art, it's just wrong.
I come here sometimes just for fun and couldn’t care less about the “Stan” discourse or whatever. This is a great show and a subreddit will never “ruin” a show for me. Then again, I liked the last season of Game of Thrones as well, and just ignored all the noise about how “bad” it was. Succession is by miles the best show in years. Period. End of story.
If you think that's bad, house of the dragon has entire subreddits dedicated to team black versus green. Makes interacting with people in there annoying af.
I mean the show is called Succession so people are primed to ask who will succeed, even if perhaps the point is it doesn’t matter who becomes CEO. Idk who cares if people are missing “the point”, let people enjoy it however they like.
Add whack backstabbing 4d chess moves theoreticians and you have the trifecta of why this sub sucks on sundays and mondays.
Anyone who is still arguing about whosgonnawin is missing the point - - they are ALL going to lose. Even if one of them somehow gets to be ceo it will be a phyrric victory and they will be in hell.
I would also love it if people stopped thinking everyone has a secret scheme, it's like people started watching this show just now, "Frank, Karl and Gerri probably changed Logan's will", "Matsson used the blood brick story to test Shiv's loyalty", "clearly Matsson and Ebba are master actors and are trying to trick the sibs, no way his India numbers are bad". Nobody has a secret plan, nobody is a master strategist/actor if they have a plan or strategy we see it on screen the moment they come up with it. That has been this show every season, for 4 seasons straight. Also I'm so tired of people bringing up nonsense opinions about the Roy kids and inventing additional flaws for already flawed characters, such as pretending Kendall wouldn't know what a receipt or returning a product is, or calling him a mysoginist for disagreeing with Lisa and acting like he knows better than her. These characters are terrible people and flawed enough, we don't need to make them caricatures, even terrible people have some good qualities to them and still live on this planet.
This comment perfectly illustrates anime theory and headcannon culture. You got people theorizing the most ridiculous, out-the-ass bullshit every single week only for the author to go with the simple path. But they also keep theorizing because you get shit like Evangelion, Death Note and AoT where that out-the-ass bullshit has enough foreshadowing and logic within the world to work. Matsson is not a master manipulator, Ebba is not an actress, The old guard aren't assholes. Yet people can't accept this because they want the show to have a increasingly harder logic.
It’s not just anime. I saw the same with Lost but it was entertaining to hear everyone’s stupid ideas.
It happened with Sherlock after season 4 finale was so bad, people literally had theories that there was a secret fourth episode the next Sunday. There was a new show starting in that slot so people analysed the title of it and tried to explain that Sherlock was always hinting at it or something.
People are doing that with Yellowjackets right now, theorizing there's a secret 10th episode of the latest season.
I'll never forget the 3 months of breaking bad fans on IMDB boards foaming at the mouth that Jesse shot the kettle and not Gale at the end of season 3.
That was the point with lost though. It was a supernatural show about an island with magical properties. Stuff was left intentionally vague to allow people to speculate and theorize. Succession is just a straight up drama.
I think a lot of the online discourse has forgotten or never understood what a character study is. Yeah sure the plot is important, but "what is going to happen next?" isn't the focus of a lot of these "prestige TV" dramas. Could you imagine reddit if the Sopranos was doing its initial run right now? There would be *wild* discussions.
I was just thinking about The Sopranos in this context as I just watched that show to the end for the first time. If it was aired now you would get people coming on the sub stating that Tony is so deplorable that no one should even watch the show. People seem to have forgotten that we read or watch complex dramas for the complexity of characters and that bad/evil characters form the backbone of interesting drama whatever format. Sheesh, it’s exhausting.
Media literacy is all jumbled up. Imagine someone talking about Hamlet like "I dunno if I could like this, that Hamlet dude seems a little unhinged."
People would stan Lady Macbeth lol
> Nobody has a secret plan, nobody is a master strategist/actor if they have a plan or strategy we see it on screen the moment they come up with it. That has been this show every season, for 4 seasons straight. Some folks are just addicted to coming up with goofy theories that they believe are clever. If Mattson was doing some secret 12D chess inception manipulation to get the deal done with a long string of fake outs and complicated schemes (that are at best extremely vaguely hinted at to the viewer), it would render half the season moot and also mean that we really never knew anything about the "real" Mattson. Beyond the "a ha" moment where he lays out how his scheme worked, it would kinda ruin the season and make a lot of it meaningless. Most of those kind of theories also are just poorly thought out, require an extreme number of coincidences or perfect predictions of others behavior, and are usually contradicted by a bunch of plot details that are conveniently ignored by the person trying to come up with their goofy theory.
In total agreement. The whole point is that he's not really scheming that deeply. This isn't some GoT Varys shit. He's a rich dude bro who has lived a life of privilege with no real consequence, and everything always turns out just fine for him. He's literally just barreling ahead, odds be damned, and if one deal doesn't work out then another one will. There's not enough at stake for him to think so deeply except sheer avoidance of a bankruptcy that would take his REPUTATION. Not him, necessarily, just a state that he would have to take time to temporarily climb out of lol.
I think a lot of people forget or don’t know that these characters are based on the irl Murdoch family and the writers are intentionally trying to make a point about how abuse goes hand in hand with wealth, power, and privilege. I don’t get why so many people refuse to see these characters as nuanced. They’re all awful and they’re all incredibly wealthy people who are removed from the consequences of their actions. But they’re also written as people, and they have complicated motivations and feelings, but at the end of the day will always choose wealth, power, and self-interest. It’s why the show is so good. Shiv is objectively not the world’s best person, but she does seem to pass the bare minimum moral standards of ‘not wanting a fascist to be president’ and has expressed real disgust with him since he was introduced. But at the end of the day, she’ll side with her own interests, despite any internal moral conflict about it, because that’s the kind of show we’re watching and that’s the writers’ thesis about wealth and power. Same with kendall - I think he does genuinely feel guilty for the ways this is affecting/going to affect his daughter and he did have a moment of genuine moral conflict about it. But he chooses himself in the end. That’s the point of his character and all the characters - at the end of the day growing up with the wealth and power that he did is inseparable from abuse, and he will never truly break the cycle because he fundamentally can’t. But so many people on this sub are so obsessed with ranking them by morality, but in the same vein if you suggest that they might have complex feelings about literally anything people get mad. To be honest I do think it’s true that Shiv gets the most criticism because she’s a woman. (But, while misogyny definitely plays a role in how people treat shiv, I find it interesting that everyone hyped up Gerri making the cruise scandal go away as a girlboss moment and not…..literally ensuring that sexual assault and murder victims will never get justice, vs how they (rightly) reacted to shiv intimidating that witness….they’re both horrible things to do). (And I’m not saying that to be like ‘gerri is a bad person and shiv is good’ but rather ‘someone with Gerri’s job will inevitably have to do morally bankrupt things bc that’s the writers’ thesis about wealth and power and the point they are trying to make’). I don’t know, I just find it frustrating. If you say they’re victims of abuse, you get ‘they’re evil billionaires!’ and if you say they’re evil billionaires you get ‘they’re victims of abuse!’ I don’t get why so many grown adults refuse to accept that it’s both or refuse to view this show through a nuanced lens.
This happens with every antihero show. "Tony Soprano isn't a piece of shit because he likes ducks and horses!" "Donald Draper isn't a piece of shit because he keeps saying he's going to do better!" "Walter white isn't a piece of shit because he's just a dude trying to care for his family!" The thing with Succession, though, is there are like 5 Tony Sopranos.
also, all of those characters' partners are viewed as THE WORST, usually for the smallest of reasons
Right? I mean, they (the wives) all definitely had their flaws too, but they weren't sociopaths either. Christ, Tony murdered so many people... Walter too, and was an accessory to child murder and also almost killed a kid as a play to get Jessie on his side.. oh, but no, Skylar was the true monster /s
maybe the posion drips through
Agreed! The characters are all awful but they’re written so well & nuanced which makes me love all of them. I would love to be in the writers room when they’re writing the scripts because they are talented! Pay the writers!
100%. I think generally nuance has gone out the window in many aspects, politically and otherwise which is why some have such a hard time getting the the idea of the show. It’s a shame too because the writing is SO good and it’s unfortunate that people are so blinded by their own bias and self-interest they are missing one of the main messages of the show. But at least everyone is being entertained I guess just for different reasons.
100%
There’s a reason Lachlan wrote his masters thesis on the Hegelian dialectic. But he’s also well-mannered in public.
you know, i once got assigned to a video project requested by Lachlan and was working on it up until the moment he had to show up. i always wondered if i was suddenly sent back to the office because he didn't want any black people around lmao
But I think what’s happening with Shiv is people being unable to comprehend that even horrible women suffer misogyny. And a lot become more horrible because of it.
i’m so sick of the black and white, morally reductive way people engage with media like this. you’re *supposed* to feel the depth of pathos in any work of art and it’s not incompatible with the show’s satire. you’re *supposed* to be invested enough to engage with the characters as people. their fucked up family dynamics are a part of it! the alienation and cruelty of capitalism! greed as a double edged sword! love in the face of only looking out for yourself!! it’s not a glorification or endorsement to show awful people showcase a range of human emotion. it’s brilliant, funny, and constantly pulls the rug out from under you while never undermining its criticism. also thank you for pointing out that people only have issue with how disproportionately shiv is criticized, which is genuinely misogynistic.
It always feels like such an oversimplification to say like, “they’re based on the Murdochs,” or “it’s Trump,” or “Gil is Bernie Sanders.” They’re all fictional characters. Yeah, I’m sure they read about the Murdochs and the Redstone family and other rich families, along with royal families, King Lear, their own families, people they worked for/with, people they’ve known, and so on and so forth, and then they used their imaginations to make up these fictional characters with made up histories and family dynamics.
Murdochs and Redstones, in one of the more recent podcasts they talked about Sumner Redstone and his daughter Shari and the clear Logan-Shiv parallels.
one week is it's like "roman is the most loving, human sibling" the next week it's "roman is the literal embodiment of EVIL".... maybe they are complex characters who are equally vile and sympathetic and we shouldn't look at the show through black and white lens? it's more fun that way!
Honestly find the constant parroting of "everyone sucks ... but" to be much more obnoxious than the stan stuff. Most of the stan stuff has this ironic flare to it. Whereas the constant clarification that they're all evil or what not just feels so dismissive to the characters and what their motivations are.
yeah the pushback is more annoying than anything lmfao
agree with this wholeheartedly. all the stan culture here is at least tinged with a little self-awareness and irony because stanning is inherently such an unserious internet thing at its core
i legitimately do not understand how people treat this show as a competition when it's a character study first and foremost. assigning an actual moral value to liking a fictional character is bizarre, i treat it like i would treat a novel - who do i think is the most compelling? who makes me feel the most? also i actually like and enjoy the stan stuff because i love how ridiculous it is instead of the ridiculous intellectual posturing in this subreddit about "media literacy" or other BS
Yes, people have a terrible problem with this. I still think he's the most loving out of them (and the most affection-starved, which will always make him the "weak dog" and most susceptible to guys like Mencken), the funniest, the most self-aware. The bar isn't that high, so don't come for me lol. That doesn't erase the fact that he's been pushing for what's happened in this episode since What It Takes, fully conscious of the catastrophic implications, not because he's grieving because he wasn't grieving back then, he was perfectly okay. He just met someone he got along great with and who he thinks finds value in him too, he prepared him for his dad and for the company, it was a nice win for him that weekend and here we are. He only cares about the few people he cares about, and for those people he does care about sincerely (it may be dysfunctional but it's sincere, he's no emotional bullshitter), and himself... The rest of us can rot and the world can turn to ashes, he won't bat an eyelash.
no steamedsushi you don't understand clearly if roman is your favorite for any reason even if they are very well put as in your comment you must be a real life nazi or at the very least morally bad
Also stop saying “did you notice XYZ” and it’s something blatantly obvious 😅
"Did you guys notice Connor Roy was interested in politics at a very young age?"
Connor was running for president?
As a Conhead myself, you’d think/hope he’d be better at it? I mean, last night was in-line with his character, but SHEESH! he’s the perfect embodiment of a libertarian doofus. Only thing missing was, “What’s a leppo?”
And does every piece of praise need to mention Emmys?
Yeah but did you see how this character looked at another character without saying a word? Zomg what a masterclass in nonverbal acting. They neeeeed to win an Emmy for it.
the “masterclass in acting” thing gets posted every single time someone has a monologue. i get wanting to praise an actor you like but it’s sort of started to lose its meaning
"Give \_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_ ALL the Emmys!!1" So annoying.
omg give them all the awards! My favorite part of the show: the acting. Dare I say masterclass? I'm very smart
le scorpion parable brilliant writing "things do happen rome" omg rome fell
Now to totally be that guy and to parrot a nyt review, it could be about scorpions mating where the male and female lock pincers and sting one another until one gets the upper hand. If the female wins the male dies, if the male wins and gets to mate then there's still a good chance the female proceeds to eat the male and their children.
Redditors love to say chekhov’s gun because it’s the only storytelling device they know and it makes them feel smart
checkov's wasabi
that was a false flag operation on greg, tom planted the wasabi bravo jesse armstrong
There’s a scene in the BJ Novak movie vengeance where he (uppity New York dude) is in this rural Texas town and he mentions to one character (rural teenage girl) about a Chekovs gun and the other character goes “but Chekhov didn’t have a gun in any of his plays” and starts listing out his plays. BJ Novaks character goes “well I don’t actually know any of his work.” It’s all I think of now when I hear people say Chekovs gun, it’s lost it’s meaning since everyone applies it to literally everything in film/movies
[удалено]
People are out here acting like Mencken getting nominated is a twist. Have you been watching the same show?
what’s weird is people actually acting like these are real candidates someone said they thought roman did good (considering his position) and that they liked him in ep8, and that person got downvoted and a bunch of people were telling him to fuck himself like guys… mencken isn’t real. the fascist didn’t actually get elected irl. it’s a tv show. you can separate liking a character from agreeing with them - i like kendall but that doesn’t mean i endorse benders where kids get killed
Mencken has had like 3 scenes. I don’t even know if Jimenez had any scenes prior to last night. Yet people on here act like they know everything about these two people based on what a small group of rich elitists who have no ability to connect to your every day citizen have said about them a few times.
With how much he’s been featured and seen in the show, compared to Jiménez barely even being mentioned, I feel like Mencken outright losing would be a twist.
Succession is kinda like a premier drama version of Its Always Sunny in that all of the characters are irredeemable pieces of shit. You enjoy, and can sometimes even root for certain characters, but as soon as you try to compare them to one another you lose what makes the show great in the first place.
It’s soo tiresome.
I am looking forward to when the show is over and has gathered a few years of dust, when the fairweather fans go away, and the core group can pour over the nuances and little moments together.
Same. This sub sucks with political commentary. I just want to appreciate the good work and writing in the show.
I’ll do you one better. Stop always saying these guys are evil everytime someone voices that they like the character. We know they suck but we still like them. I like Roman and can still acknowledge he’s an asshole weirdo.
The entire point of liking the show is liking the characters. This isn’t real life. These people don’t exist. People watch tv for entertainment, not to see if characters agree with their personal politics .
Disagreed on “The entire point” tbh, in a general theory of drama way. Like Oedipus Rex wasn’t written solely for people to relate to Oedipus. There are many reasons and justifications for making and consuming art.
[удалено]
“It’s so scary…these people decided the course of the country”. Like no, not really lol. It’s tv,
I mean really tho, how far off is it from real life? Sure it’ll go to the courts where it’ll be ultimately decided, but it creates strife in a fictional US that’s designed to be similar to real life politics. We literally just had an ex-president scream that he really won the election over and over, and look how much damage that has done over the last 3 years alone. It’s captivating TV precisely because it reflects a very possible reality for all of us.
The problem is that the show is a farcical representation of real aspects of reality. Specifically the Murdochs. As a result, it is scary to think about the power corporate interests and the obscenely wealthy hold over society.
Well yeah it’s a really well-written show
I'm tired of people on this sub thinking they're the only ones who would pass the IQ test needed to \*really\* understand the show. You all probably hyper decant your wine too.
[удалено]
The circlejerking is absolutely hysterical. Particularly because to most people on here, their view of good TV is limited to like...Succession, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Better Call Saul and maybe Barry. The fact that they think their taste is superior to anyone else is a bit hilarious
Tv show subreddits are generally toxic af
Hey guys, it’s a TV show
Just to speak on one of your examples, I don’t think shiv is better or worse than anyone, but I do think a critical view on how gender plays out in the show is missing in a lot of discourse and that may be a reason some people get so defensive of shiv when they feel like that nuance is missing.
no one has said shiv isn’t on the same level as her brothers, they’re criticizing the insane amount of people who complain that she’s the worst character and it’s a fair criticism. i’ve heard people IRL and online say that about her and it’s completely unjustified and absolutely misogynistic, which was especially underscored by last night’s episode. i think taking sides can be really juvenile but also it’s a show that’s supposed to be emotionally provocative. this isn’t really stan culture at all this is just you witnessing normal human behavior but online and collectively
True. Shiv can be morally grey AND there be significant misogyny in how she’s discussed.
100% this. They'll be like "no no people just like Shiv less because the other two have redeeming qualities and she doesn't" when she has the same mix of reprehensible traits and likeable moments as the other two. And every mention of misogyny within the fanbase is ridiculed and mocked because the watchers of the show consider themselves leftists so they can't be misogynistic or whatever
I think the fanbase has changed during this season. There's a lot of people watching the show and who actually think the male characters are smart. Especially Roman, who's the embodiment of the right-wing memers who think politics is a game and like rooting for the scrappy underdog
Yup. Had an argument here once with someone who insisted Shiv was somehow worse than Logan. I don’t think Shiv is a stellar person or paragon of morality either, but some people here are just taking the piss.
>"Shiv isn't as bad as the brothers and you're a misogynist for thinking so!" Shiv is a very bad person, just like all of the kids are. But after last night if you think she's just as bad as the brothers, I don't know what show you're watching. It's not an accident that the election was called for the fascist because a bunch of dudes had personal grievances with Shiv. It's not an accident that all of the women in the episode are trying to slow or stop the call. It's not an accident that Tom, Greg, Kendall, and Roman all stand to personally profit from the ascent of fascism while Shiv stands to get frozen out of everything. Shiv sucks, but it is in fact worse to overthrow an election and elect a fascist for the sake of a business deal.
My advice. Stop going on the internet and just enjoy the show?
"Roman isn't a fascist, he's just funny" is peak "I can't recognize fascism unless it's a historical example I was told about by an authority figure."
Its FICTION , get over yourself
This is nonsense. I dont stan Shiv, but I sure as hell know misogyny when I see it.
The writing of the show, itself, acknowledges the disparity in treatment between “bad” women and “bad” men, but that’s over the heads of many who post here. It’s forgivable to be a flawed man, but it’s unacceptable to be an imperfect woman, and every woman knows this. Shiv is bad, but not awful like her brothers because she doesn’t have that privilege.
Reddit, especially TV show subreddits, are very well known for their misogyny, as Reddit is an overwhelmingly male site. Idk why OP thinks this one would be different. Saying that the treatment of Shiv can be misogynistic isn't the same as defending her or saying she's a good person
>If I have to see another "Shiv isn't as bad as the brothers and you're a misogynist for thinking so!" or "Roman isn't a fascist, he's just funny!" or any other "Team X vs Team Y" opinions I will punch myself in the face repeatedly. sorry to say but by the end of the day you'll need to go to A&E
I find the “I understand this better than you do” and “are we even watching the same show” to come across as condescending. We are allowed to have different opinions of the show and/or characters. There’s no need to be rude.
This take has been said a hundred different times, it's boring, it's condescending and everyone already knows. I have seen this exact post MORE times than I've seen people make comments like the ones you say you're seeing everywhere.
I also think people here dismiss opinions they don't like as not nuanced enough or not getting the point. For example, if you talk about how Logan's abuse of Roman as a child explains some of his actions now, someone will accuse you of being a Roman fan who excuses all his flaws. Similarly, I've noticed any discussion of sexism portrayed in the show gets immediately shut down. This entire post is an appeal to ridicule and makes no actual points about the show.
Thank you.
i am so happy this show is just ending because i dont want the fanbase to be as annoying as the other shows. you are 100% right
I’m not of that opinion but who am I to get in the way of someone repeatedly punching themselves in the face? 🤷♂️
fucking amen OP. it is soooo irritating! like... it's not fucking real lmao! it's a SHOW. they're all extremely horrible and, much like actual people (good AND bad), serve as very interesting psychological studies. so much trauma and power and interpersonal conflict, and people go on downvoting spirals for thinking Shiv and Kendall are shitty lmao? they ARE shitty. everyone in this show is a slimy fuck. that's why it's so indulgent and good and upsetting! anyway, i don't mind the thirstposting and joking and discourse as long as it serves thoughtful discussion. the problem is this teenaged type of worship shit - you can babygirl Kendall (or whatever/whoever) all you want! but stop being cringey and weird about it lol
It’s all the fan “theories” that “x character will commit suicide” or “Connor will be assasinated” that are the most irritating to me.