sus

Well-known member
Kendall’s soaking in a hot spring with his eyes closed; wind and steam blow behind him across a barren Icelandic landscape. An employee of the clinic, in creepy all-white Keds and capris, says something ominous about a visitor requesting Ken’s presence. “What is this? What do you mean?” he asks, anxious and bewildered. Keds: “This came as an instruction to me, so could you just come with me please?” It’s weird and awkward: high-paying clients—and the expensive clinicians who work at rehab facilities like this, prized for their confidentiality—don’t usually get ordered around by random guests who show up at the doorstep demanding facetime. There are only two authorities powerful enough to make that kind of demand: local law enforcement, and Kendall’s father. We’ve started the new season en media res, about forty-eight hours after the finale. The last time we saw Kendall he had fled the scene of a car crash that killed his k-holed waiter, and we have just as little info about what’s going down now as does.
 

sus

Well-known member
So Kendall slings on a bathrobe, walks up some stairs to a lobby marked by that clean, minimalist international style: black metal, clean white linens, dark-wood doors, and tropical plants in concrete pots. There’s a pineapple on the kitchen counter near a statue of Buddha. “Ragnar Magnusson,” a serious-looking Scandinavian in a suit, introduces himself. Kendall asks “What is this?” just as confused as before. Magnus gives a token “How are you?”, then cuts to the chase: “We might need to pull you out.” “Pull me out? I’m sorry, who is we? Who are you…?” Ken’s face sinks, and his lip trembles like he’s about to cry. Ragnar is strangely intense. “It’s fine Kendall, I’m Ragnar.” He works for a firm representing Ken’s father, Logan Roy. He’s come to get Kendall for an impending television appearance.

The interaction’s a rollercoaster ride for Kendall because he’s just a mess now, generally—dopamine receptors deep in a post-coke hibernation—and as much as it’s a relief to realize he’s not getting arrested, he’s equally scared of his father, and of having to face the inevitable reparations that come with unconditional surrender. Ken’s never looked more pathetic than he does now: water dripping on the floor around his bare feet, asking his dad’s PR consultant permission to finish his silica treatment before they go. “Can I just… uh…?” “No.”
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
4 seasons is a commitment, tried to stay away from it mainly for this reason and the current overproduction and saturation of bunk storytelling

wills and legacy issues are spider webs for relationships, add $ empire clout, B Cox, I can see the appeal but night shifts mean trying to cram a read or film in and there’s a backlog

Sopranos was gold, unfair to compare but is it on the same level for characters and plotting? a show which could’ve wrapped itself up more succinctly is a lesson in exiting an epic yet a rewatch always rewards
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
There is something so abject in the huge gap between how Kendall sees himself (ie not a spineless idiot) and how he is (totally spineless fucking idiot) and the fact that deep down he absolutely knows it. Seeing someone so utterly broken and pathetic is horrifying - and yeah he portrays it perfectly. It's definitely his best role after Simon The Devious.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
4 seasons is a commitment, tried to stay away from it mainly for this reason and the current overproduction and saturation of bunk storytelling

wills and legacy issues are spider webs for relationships, add $ empire clout, B Cox, I can see the appeal but night shifts mean trying to cram a read or film in and there’s a backlog

Sopranos was gold, unfair to compare but is it on the same level for characters and plotting? a show which could’ve wrapped itself up more succinctly is a lesson in exiting an epic yet a rewatch always rewards
Not an easy one to answer, but you asked the question so I will at least try - other, greater minds can step in and correct me but at least I will have given them something to correct.

In comparison to The Sopranos, I would say that the characterisation is just as good and deep and complex. It is however more tightly focused, Sopranos managed to sprawl out in all directions and yet pretty much every person the storyline stopped and concentrated on was given a real personality. Succession does stay on the main group of the immediate family along with Tom and then a few recurring characters in the business. That's not better or worse really, it's just a different approach, the important thing (for me) is that all the characters you spend time with are well realised.

What both programmes do well - or at least appear to do well - is conjure up a world and draw you into it. Now I know roughly as much about being part of a jet setting family of billionaire media moguls as I do about being part of a gang of decrepit but crudely effective NJ based Italian-American mobsters, but Succession and Sopranos (I wrote Suppression and Socanos for a sec there) have each built what feels like a plausible version of their respective realities for the afore-mentioned multi-faceted characters to live in and they work for me.

If you've read through the thread above you will have no doubt seen people refer to a feeling of treading water at points and (probably cos I was one of those people) I totally agree. I don't think I'd be giving anything away if I say that it begins with the patriarch (ie Rupe) having a heart attack or something and his kids immediately starting to jockey for position as his successor. But he survives and the scene is set, the whole idea is that the main guy's days are numbered and sooner or later, he will die and one of his offspring (or possibly someone else I guess) will run will the company after him. But by calling it Succession and making that the theme it feels that if he actually dies and it's resolved then that will be the end of it, so that can't happen... but on the other hand, if he's not gonna die then you have the other side of that coin, interminable empty manoeuvrings that lead nowhere. And this is a problem for many series I'm sure but somehow it seems more visible here. And I was going to say that that represents a weakness compared to Sopranos, but then I remembered bits in the second and third series when it seemed to concentrate too much on the actual family (it was best when there was a balance/conflict surely, that's what made it interesting) and I felt it too wallowed a little without direction for a while.
 

WashYourHands

Cat Malogen
Not an easy one to answer, but you asked the question so I will at least try - other, greater minds can step in and correct me but at least I will have given them something to correct.

In comparison to The Sopranos, I would say that the characterisation is just as good and deep and complex. It is however more tightly focused, Sopranos managed to sprawl out in all directions and yet pretty much every person the storyline stopped and concentrated on was given a real personality. Succession does stay on the main group of the immediate family along with Tom and then a few recurring characters in the business. That's not better or worse really, it's just a different approach, the important thing (for me) is that all the characters you spend time with are well realised.

What both programmes do well - or at least appear to do well - is conjure up a world and draw you into it. Now I know roughly as much about being part of a jet setting family of billionaire media moguls as I do about being part of a gang of decrepit but crudely effective NJ based Italian-American mobsters, but Succession and Sopranos (I wrote Suppression and Socanos for a sec there) have each built what feels like a plausible version of their respective realities for the afore-mentioned multi-faceted characters to live in and they work for me.

If you've read through the thread above you will have no doubt seen people refer to a feeling of treading water at points and (probably cos I was one of those people) I totally agree. I don't think I'd be giving anything away if I say that it begins with the patriarch (ie Rupe) having a heart attack or something and his kids immediately starting to jockey for position as his successor. But he survives and the scene is set, the whole idea is that the main guy's days are numbered and sooner or later, he will die and one of his offspring (or possibly someone else I guess) will run will the company after him. But by calling it Succession and making that the theme it feels that if he actually dies and it's resolved then that will be the end of it, so that can't happen... but on the other hand, if he's not gonna die then you have the other side of that coin, interminable empty manoeuvrings that lead nowhere. And this is a problem for many series I'm sure but somehow it seems more visible here. And I was going to say that that represents a weakness compared to Sopranos, but then I remembered bits in the second and third series when it seemed to concentrate too much on the actual family (it was best when there was a balance/conflict surely, that's what made it interesting) and I felt it too wallowed a little without direction for a while.

might save it for autumn’s shift to getting late early, glorious weather has descended well before solstice and you know these septic isles - it can never last

the paucity of stories worth engaging with on telly has become farcical, everyone’s looking for the next slightly better than average event to roll through, which has plus points when gluttons like Netflix are financially struggling

a more personal reason is my Mum is getting on now and had to intervene when finding out she’d made no will, I mean no cunt teaches you the nuances of care for the elderly at school and you have to learn quickly when one parent drops well before the other, not an easy conversation discussing the tax merits of trusts either when a surviving parent is sprightly and compos mentis for their biological age
 

sus

Well-known member
no probs, great stuff
Thanks. The introduction is a little slow. Lot of context to set up, hard to be punchy, but on a second draft it'll get there, you understand.

One thing I've been wondering about, maybe you could speak to it a bit—is Succession modeled on Gossip Girl?? I thought I noticed some shot-for-shot references, for instance, certain conversations under a spiral staircase. In fact I think there's a case that Succession is Gossip Girl but they’re grown-ups, Gossip Girl twenty years later, Chuck still desperate to impress his empire-building father. Does this hold any water? Or am I just apophenic and over-connecting the dots on two iconic New York shows?
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
I tried with this 4th season but couldnt be bothered cause I dont think I liked the second or third seasons much and was generally done. The show is always setting up for something interesting to happen and then completely ignoring it- like when kendall kills the waiter or the feds raid the office. And even with more general plot points we get the same pattern- theres gonna be a sale, but wait! the kids have daddy issues and instead nothing happens. Thats the entire show. So its not particuarlly dramatic, but the show is committed to trying to be dramatic so its not always particuarlly funny either. When that big thing happens early on in the 4th season, I didnt know what to take of it because I was so suprised something actually happened and thats where I gave up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sus

sus

Well-known member
I tried with this 4th season but couldnt be bothered cause I dont think I liked the second or third seasons much and was generally done. The show is always setting up for something interesting to happen and then completely ignoring it- like when kendall kills the waiter or the feds raid the office. And even with more general plot points we get the same pattern- theres gonna be a sale, but wait! the kids have daddy issues and instead nothing happens. Thats the entire show. So its not particuarlly dramatic, but the show is committed to trying to be dramatic so its not always particuarlly funny either. When that big thing happens early on in the 4th season, I didnt know what to take of it because I was so suprised something actually happened and thats where I gave up.
That's exactly it. All these fake-outs of real disruption. The writing at a micro-scale is good. But at a macro-scale I want a bit more dynamism.

I also think the scenes where the rich people eat appetizers on lawns at rich person garden parties are great. I want more flirty light tone stuff. You can't have heavy tone stuff always and then nothing happens. Have light tone and nothing happens, heavy tone when it does
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I tried with this 4th season but couldnt be bothered cause I dont think I liked the second or third seasons much and was generally done. The show is always setting up for something interesting to happen and then completely ignoring it- like when kendall kills the waiter or the feds raid the office. And even with more general plot points we get the same pattern- theres gonna be a sale, but wait! the kids have daddy issues and instead nothing happens. Thats the entire show. So its not particuarlly dramatic, but the show is committed to trying to be dramatic so its not always particuarlly funny either. When that big thing happens early on in the 4th season, I didnt know what to take of it because I was so suprised something actually happened and thats where I gave up.
Never mind that Logan was supposed to be losing his mind in the first series but has apparently just 'got better' over the course of a few years. Now I'm no geriatrician but that strikes me as fairly implausible.

I'm still watching it because the acting and scripting are both great, but yeah, it's impossible to completely ignore all this stuff that was built up to be a big thing and then forgotten about.
 

Jeremy

New member
Thanks. The introduction is a little slow. Lot of context to set up, hard to be punchy, but on a second draft it'll get there, you understand.

One thing I've been wondering about, maybe you could speak to it a bit—is Succession modeled on Gossip Girl?? I thought I noticed some shot-for-shot references, for instance, certain conversations under a spiral staircase. In fact I think there's a case that Succession is Gossip Girl but they’re grown-ups, Gossip Girl twenty years later, Chuck still desperate to impress his empire-building father. Does this hold any water? Or am I just apophenic and over-connecting the dots on two iconic New York shows?

never seen Gossip Girl I'm afraid mate!
 
  • Sad
Reactions: sus

IdleRich

IdleRich
That's exactly it. All these fake-outs of real disruption. The writing at a micro-scale is good. But at a macro-scale I want a bit more dynamism.
I'd agree with this. In fact, I've just finished the last episode and so the following will contain some very general and mild spoilers for Succession and other shows in a way too.

. I felt the conclusion was quite disappointing. Now all these big ticket shows always face this question of how to finish their fifty hour long epic in suitably powerful fashion. Off the top of my head you have Sopranos with the famously divisive cut to black, Mad Men's "I'd like to buy the world a coke" and The Wire's montage showing how the remaining characters finished up. And Succession? I feel they made a mistake with a ninety minute finale that had a BIG AGM scene as well as an uncharacteristically sentimental bit with the family all watching videos, neither things which played to the show's strengths. Regardless of how things finished up and how you feel about that, it seemed that the sharp dialogue and viciousness was missing and so it all felt a little flat. In other words, I agree that the micro writing is better than the macro, yet, presumably cos they felt they had to go out spectacularly,bthe final episode veered towards the macro.
 
Top