- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,370
They were both damn good. Hard to pick a favorite.I liked better call Saul better than BB
They were both damn good. Hard to pick a favorite.I liked better call Saul better than BB
I didn't. Had a hard time finishing it.I liked better call Saul better than BB
Y'all are fucking certified goobers if you can recall any other specific episode without Sasquatch and Jamie.Maybe still my favorite show of all time. So much greatness, at least the first couple of years.
To bb or anyone else: Favorite episodes?
Tales of the Gold Monkey
Congrats on 100K. And it's Jaime, not Jamie.Y'all are fucking certified goobers if you can recall any other specific episode without Sasquatch and Jamie.
Well that was a retarded 100th K post.Congrats on 100K. And it's Jaime, not Jamie.
#tvnerd
Welcome to the 100k Club.Well that was a retarded 100th K post.
Didnt care for the brokeback episode. Seemed out of place. The episodes were moving and then stopped to a crawl. That is all.
It is better if you consider them singular and on their own rather than compare them.I liked better call Saul better than BB
With Nick f'ing Offerman of all people. It was dumb.
Then he's not the man I thought he was.I thought it was risky and impressive. They pulled it off.
And apparently Offermann didn't think it was dumb.
That's exactly what I told my wife. It had jack shit to do with the story line. So, why even put it in there?No need for it. You could take that whole episode out and not even miss a beat in the story.
It's there to build on a character from the game. If you're only looking at how to progress the story, just cut the character altogether. The only purpose he served in the game was to show how a Survivalist was able to make it work on his own and provide equipment for the trip.That's exactly what I told my wife. It had jack shit to do with the story line. So, why even put it in there?
Was the character a raging homo in the game? Because that part seemed entirely unnecessary. I guess they were going for woke points, but it didn't make any sense.It's there to build on a character from the game. If you're only looking at how to progress the story, just cut the character altogether. The only purpose he served in the game was to show how a Survivalist was able to make it work on his own and provide equipment for the trip.
Instead, they chose to expand on his backstory while also showing the dangers that are out in the world. Prior to the episode, the injected were the problem. It took it further to show that people can be a bigger danger.
The problem is, the Walking Dead already did that 10 years ago so everyone already knew humans would turn into pieces of shit and turn on each other. So the effect it was going for is far less impactful.
He's far left irlThen he's not the man I thought he was.
He's gay in the game and a lot more redneck. Like, uber Nascar fan pounding Natty Lites type redneck. But by the time Joel and Ellie got to him, Frank had already died. We don't know how or why, he's just mentioned in passing.Was the character a raging homo in the game? Because that part seemed entirely unnecessary. I guess they were going for woke points, but it didn't make any sense.
Fair enough then, I guess. I still don't see how it has anything to do with the story.He's gay in the game and a lot more redneck. Like, uber Nascar fan pounding Natty Lites type redneck. But by the time Joel and Ellie got to him, Frank had already died. We don't know how or why, he's just mentioned in passing.
I think it's simply taking a character that a lot of the game players enjoyed and expanding him for their benefit. He was a fun character to interact with in the game, albeit for a short time and the producers knew they probably only had 1 episode to do with him whatever they wanted. So they either went the direction they did, or they did much less and had a boring interaction between him and Joel for 45 minutes leading up to a firefight.Fair enough then, I guess. I still don't see how it has anything to do with the story.