MovieChat Forums > wrclt
wrclt (7)
Posts
Replies
So that's what I've been missing. I did wonder what all the fuss was about the diner. I remember the waitress and I remember the tattoos, but I just didn't connect the dots. I can't even remember how I interpreted that or if I did at all. When you put it this way, it definitely makes sense.
[quote]It's odd because I was just having this conversation with my wife that it feels like onscreen relationships/friendships are too often described in terms of "sexual tension," as if there can't be another kind of relationship. It actually makes me feel bad for millennials if they can only understand relationships as levels of sexual attraction. You can never truly be/have a friend if you see everyone as a potential sex partner. [/quote]
I don't know about that. Apart from shippers that congregate on places like tumblr, I don't really see anyone pointing out sexual tension in TV shows where no sexual tension was intended to be perceived.
I didn't get the sense that burning journals was foreshadowing his death in particular either. I thought that was building up to something else and that he would get to live much longer. But then again, I wasn't aware this was the final season. I only learned that today, actually.
Also, it completely flew over my head that he wasn't supposed to drive while driving Donna. I didn't even think about that until you pointed it out now. I guess this underlines Donna's shame at the time even more, given that not only is the only person she can count on her ex husband, but the dude's not even supposed to drive.
All I can say is that the moment they revealed Gordon's illness, I suspected he will die at some point. And the moment they put it away and moved on to other plot points, I was entirely convinced he would eventually die.
I'm sure the show was inconsistent here and there like any other show, though I don't remember any examples. But giving someone a serious illness, doing nothing much at all with that plot point and then shelving it forever would be a bigger oversight than anything else I can think of right now.
It's not that every ill character has to die, but that something like that should always mean something if it's introduced. The way they kept it shelved felt like they didn't do much at all about it and so I naturally assumed something would eventually come of it. I mean, you can't blame me, can you?
[quote]Joe is bi-sexual, then gay, then crazy in love with Cameron[/quote]
That's actually not that strange at all. Not having a limited sexual orientation fits right into Joe's established character. If there's one thing we definitely learned about him, it's that he's not much for conventions. Well, apart from hygiene and fashion, but even in that, you get a sense of him projecting his will rather than begrudgingly stepping in line.
I think it's just a matter of her DIY haircut being bad and Gordon being worried that it could have been an intentionally self-destructive act. I could be wrong though, I've seen several comments about Haley's supposed homosexuality. I think I may have missed a cue somewhere. Either that or several people are convinced she's a lesbian only because she cut her hair.
Unless I'm missing something, I think you read into it a bit too much.
I really don't understand this. What does that mean: "I didn't think this was that kind of show". What kind of show did you think it was? Is it only a particular "kind" of show that kills main characters?
I read pretty much the same thing from several different sources several times before. I get the impression that all of you think that a main character's death is only done for sensationalist purposes and at the expense of the general tone of a given show. I don't think this was the case at all with this show, after all, it is a fairly realistic drama that deals with the lives of fairly realistic characters. People die in real life. And yes, I fully expected Gordon to die eventually. I mean, it's not a case of me being a genius at prediction, I didn't get a hunch or anything, I didn't even need a hunch - it's just a matter of the show having spelled it out for us when they gave Gordon a very serious illness. Yeah, they put it on the shelf for a while, but was it ever implied it's just going to stay there? What would be the point of that?
Perhaps they meant to kill Gordon earlier, perhaps they didn't think they'd get four seasons. Or perhaps they intentionally wanted to introduce the concept of his eventual death very early so it wouldn't feel contrived or out-of-nowhere when he eventually does die. I don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but one thing is pretty clear - this is that "kind" of show (whatever that "kind" is) and obviously always was. There's really no reason at all to conclude it became a different kind of show because Gordon died.
I noticed it in an earlier episode as well, can't remember which one it was. I think it was the one where the librarian-what's-her-name was visiting and getting along with the kids and Gordon was a bit out of it. It seemed significant then, turns out it obviously was.
How is it significant? Have no idea. Maybe there's nothing concrete to it, it could just be an emotional cue. Sometimes visual motifs like these are used for no reason other than to be there and to tie things together. Or perhaps it's supposed to sort of resemble a comet, though to tell you the truth, I have no idea what a concrete significance of referencing the company and/or Haley would be.
Perhaps light in general is of significance. Gordon was walking through some heavy lens flare during his hallucination. And before that, he caused a blackout and worked to restore the light. Perhaps light was also used as some sort of metaphor in relation to Gordon previously in the show, but I really can't remember.
View all replies >