MovieChat Forums > The Night Of (2016) Discussion > The show lost me

The show lost me

posted 8 years ago by cdr-11
14 replies | jump to latest

When I saw the first episode, I fell in love. The acting, style and writing were amazingly well done. I was honestly surprised to see that it wasn't based on a true story because it was so gripping. I couldn't wait to watch more... and then Naz went to prison and it all turned to stupidity.

First major issue. Naz 180s into a completely different character in literally 2 episodes. Uhh what? He went from being a nervous scared wreck into a macho confident angry drug-using assistant killer because someone burned his bed and a small portion of his arm. Uhhh okay. There was nothing - NOTHING - to justify such a change in a short period of time. Breaking Bad did this transition in about 3 seasons. This show did it in 2 episodes.

I'm not even going to mention all the fictional policies/politics that were made up for this prison alone. How one guy essentially controls the entirety of the prison without being Pablo Escobar. Okay, sure.

Not only that. But what really crossed the line was Chandra. That's right. The lawyer who was essentially introduced as the underdog. The girl who was under the shadow of her employer and desperately wanted to break free. The girl who dedicated YEARS to be where she is now. And she does the STUPIDEST act ever. Chandra kisses Naz IN A CELL THAT IS CLEARLY SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE AND CAMERAS because of ONE PHONE CALL and a scene where she mentions breaking up with her boyfriend. I'm sorry for the caps, I truly am. But do the writers think this is smart television? The girl who wanted to break away from the crowd to be a successful lawyer kisses her client without any chemistry what-so-ever. It goes completely against her character's initial goals, and again, was totally unjustifiable.

The only two entertaining characters throughout the entire show was Dennis and John since their arcs actually made sense for their characters.

I feel like the writers knew where they wanted the characters to start and end, but had no idea how to actually transition them in such a short period of time. It makes me even more frustrated due to the fact that I really wanted to like this show - but I couldn't. I don't get how it's rated so high but whatever.

[–] recklesscow 8 years ago

You must have missed the constant reiteration that trials and the court system in general take a long time. Naz was in there for quite a while. Plus he was no innocent schoolboy to begin with. Selling drugs is a felony. Not to mention his assaults at his school and the fact he stole his dad's cab to go to a party which is what landed him where he was anyway. Naz's innocent exterior was crushed by the prosecution.

[–] cdr-11 8 years ago

I understand that the trial took long but the show still needs to recognize that if we want to stay connected to Naz, we have to see all the major events that happened in his life to truly understand his transformation. If that's all that happened, the payoff of his transformation is undeserving. It's like if a show introduced a character and then jumped ahead a year and the character acts totally different the audience will be less connected to them due to ignorance of past decisions that fueled their transition. The in-between is of most importance. That's why I think this show needed 2 seasons to really breathe and flesh out character arcs.

Oh please. I know plenty of people who sell drugs that wouldn't hurt a fly. Not all drug dealers are gangster killers from the streets. And we were all idiots as kids. I've done so many stupid things when I was younger that I regret. Plus, he was getting bullied heavily due to 9/11 as stated in the show. Those two things don't justify assisting in a murder and beating someone almost to death.

[–] recklesscow 8 years ago

I never said drug dealers are horrible people, I said it is a felony, which is fact. If you get caught doing it, you can kiss any stable housing, career, or schooling goodbye. I have a friend that has a MISDEMEANOR which is below a felony in terms of seriousness and she has trouble finding work. A label like that on your background follows you around and haunts your ass. And I'm not talking about drug dealers being violent. Most I've known aren't. But they are stupid. Most reputable companies will never hire a felon, so all it takes is some friend to rat you out or you sell to the wrong person and your life behind low wage jobs and crappy apartments (unless you're already wealthy) is over.

[–] recklesscow 8 years ago

Also, there's one very important difference in Walter vs. Naz's transformation: Walter was still surrounded by domesticity whereas Naz was thrown to the sharks. Walter experienced violence and disturbing situations sporadically and went home at the end of the day to his home, a wife and son, and an assumed middle class lifestyle. Naz was in a dark, concrete prison surrounded by nothing but convicts who were out to KILL him. They set his freaking bed on fire. He was in that environment 24/7 for weeks before he began to change. The episodes took place over the span of months--when did Naz begin to change, episode 4 or 5? Basically midway through the season and only after being in that jungle with his life on the line day in and day out. Walter changed because his experiences affected him. Naz changed because he had to for survival. He had no choice. The situations were completely different.

[–] J_Bun 7 years ago

Here's where you're wrong: the writers introduced a character that we knew very little about, and you projected all of your assumptions on this character because you saw a couple things that fit within those preconceived notions. Naz wasn't a "good kid" we only basically knew that he was skinny, quiet and came from a conservative Muslim family.

[–] Waldimore 7 years ago

It's called survival.

I was never connected to Naz. He is a reflection of the plague of social dysfunction in this society in this present generation. Naz literally ended up in the ceosshairs of a murder charge due to mindless choices.

Youth in this country has been exalted for its mindless, often irresponsible behavior. And like Naz, many sre swept into serious serious, life-altering consequences. And for what? ANight of?

Both Naz & Chandra were not street smart. And both suffered the consequences of this.

If anything, their lack of sophistication was frustrating, and ultimately for me, and made them less accessible to relate to. But this is what the creators wanted and they did everything correctly to set their characters' up.

[–] tomholland2016 7 years ago

Two things I'm gonna say to you considering this is a mini-series; be a fast-learner, please and yeah, try to adapt with different circumstances, surrounding, circumstamces and etc.

[–] inasir927 7 years ago

His transformation isn't from 2 episodes. In the fourth episodes ending he asks Freddie for help and still is the skinny, longer haired Nas we see. It isn't until half way through the series we see him taking those sucker shots at the guy who threw baby oil/water on him, gets tattoos and shaves his head.

[–] ViddyThisBrother 7 years ago

You do realise that Naz is still the most likely killer, right? We can't say for sure he didn't do it. Think about it, there is nothing to exonerate him.

A known drug dealer, who was caught fleeing the scene with the murder weapon after a drug fuelled night of sex, with a girl he picked up while posing as a cab driver. He couldn't be more guilty, could he?

[–] Mossap 7 years ago

SPOILERS

If you saw the final episode I think it's pretty clear it was the other guy (financial manager).

[–] ViddyThisBrother 7 years ago

If you saw the final episode I think it's pretty clear it was the other guy (financial manager).

You're jumping to a conclusion based on flimsy evidence. Now while I understand the show itself pointed us in the direction of the financial manager, there is far less evidence that he did it compared to Naz. This is what a lot of people seem to be missing, and to me this is the beauty of the story, we are still not sure Naz didn't do it. At first all the evidence pointed to Naz so everyone jumped on that bandwagon. Then some circumstancial evidence pointed to the financial guy and so people jumped onto that bandwagon. Don't you think the writers are trying to tell us something here?

[–] Mossap 7 years ago

I am jumping a bit, although I think from what the cop found out it was likely he was guilty. Also there was a scene where Box presented Weiss with what he had found out about the guy, and Weiss said "but we have more on the kid (Naz)". What she was saying wasn't that she believed Naz was guilty, but that she agreed with Box that it likely wasn't Naz, however due to the overwhelming evidence against Naz she was gonna continue to prosecute so she could win.

Also in the end when Naz got free Weiss declined to prosecute again, because she knew from talking to Box that Naz wasn't guilty.

Anyway that's my interpretation.

[–] ViddyThisBrother 7 years ago

I'm not saying you're wrong, the writers were definitely pointing us away from Naz and onto the financial guy, so your interpretation is fine. But I think there is a bigger point here, a much bigger and wider point about the criminal justice system. The writers are showing us how they can manipulate our thought process. How they can make us believe someone is guilty or innocent depending on the different narratives they employ, in the same way the media do it, in the same way the prosecution and the defence do it.

To me that's what this show is all about. The writers have manipulated us into believing Naz is innocent because the story was told entirely from his point of view. So even though all the evidence points to him as the killer, we still believe he is innocent because of the narrative. Then they point us in the direction of someone else (the financial manager), and even though there is virtually no evidence against him at all, we believe he is guilty because the narrative is against him.

This is a quote from one of the top criminal lawyers in America who was talking about the OJ Simpson case. He said "Forget about everything you've heard about how criminal trials work. This is how it really works. The prosecution tells their story, then the defence tells their story, and then the Jury gets to decide which story they like the best."

There you go, it all boils down to who tells the best story, or rather which lawyer is the best storyteller. If you're ever in trouble with the law buy the best storyteller you can afford.

[–] Mossap 7 years ago

I agree his turn from the anxious tentative guy at the start to hardened prison inmate was too easy/fast. Sure he had maybe a bit of a questionable past (although most of it wasn't really that bad), but then Naz we saw at the start - with the girl, in prison, etc. - was too different from the Naz at the end. Having said that I still liked the show a lot.