krulp t1_ja7ysk5 wrote
Reply to comment by Hidethegoodbiscuits in “ Prime Video's The Consultant Is a Little Weird, a Little Unsettling, and Mostly Mediocre.” by Hidethegoodbiscuits
I must admit, I'm only like 4 episodes in.
Waltz is amazing, the other actors aren't terrible, but nothing to write home about either.
The screen writing and dialog isn't that bad either.
But the plot is god awful. The premiss is intriguing, the mysteries are compelling, but i just couldn't get past the fact that the two protagonists don't act like real people. They behave exactly how they have to behave to make the plot move the way the writer wanted it to. Chopping and changing just to make the story.
hc600 t1_ja84h39 wrote
Yeah I watched the first two episodes and I couldn’t get past the fact that the plot seemed to happen in a very unlikely/borderline impossible way in order to set up Waltz coming in.
I specialize in corporate governance law and that’s not how a succession would play out, for a lot of reasons. With some tweaks, they could have written a better legal explanation that lands in the same place.
The two employee characters talk about the question of whether he has authority but then seem to get distracted. They don’t think to ask the company’s lawyers? If there is no in-house counsel there would be outside corporate counsel at least. Or they could go look at the governing documents themselves. But instead they are just like “how mysterious! He says he has a contract? Better let him in the boss’s old office and give him access to everything!”
jingleheimerschitt t1_ja8fun5 wrote
The fact that this wouldn't happen in real life because of all the checks and balances most corporations have in place is kind of the point of the story. This guy seems to just make things happen, in some almost magical or supernatural way, often by somehow compelling people to let him do it or convincing them to let him do it -- they know it shouldn't be happening this way, but they find themselves swept up in it anyway. Why they can't/don't stop him is part of what makes the story interesting. If you continued watching, you would see more information about how he was able to take over, but the story isn't a procedural about corporate takeovers or even a mystery that can necessarily be solved with a detective.
Edit: typo
cello12345 t1_jaam8xc wrote
The ending was a nothingburger and watching a show where you can't figure out what a character is really like because they make random decisions is unsatisfying
hc600 t1_ja8grg5 wrote
Ok so he made all the lawyers just disappear? Like, if he’s actually magic then good writing would have shown some lawyer being affected to explain how it happened. Like, it’s like making a show set in a small town under attack by a mysterious force and no one even mentions calling the police/sheriff /mayor or a building is on fire and no one mention calling the fire fighters. Or a character needs medical assistance and no one mentions calling a doctor. Or a family fights over who inherits a mansion but no one even mentions looking at a will or if there is a will.
Like, why have the characters go to the trouble of looking at the camera footage and wondering out loud how he can be in charge without consulting the obvious and easy place to get an answer?
Like, it isn’t usually a complicated question who is in charge of the CEO and board member is disabled. It’s written down! Either read the document or ask the lawyers to read the document and tell you what it says if that’s too hard! But in any event whoever is supposed to be in charge wouldn’t be a contractor. Unless he was also appointed to the board and/or as CEO. That’s bad and lazy writing sorry. They could have easily put him in charge in a way that made sense!
Like, you could just have the two employees find out that he convinced the founder to appoint him to the board and as interim CEO and signed a written consent doing that in the blowjob scene. Easy. Now he’s actually in charge unless removed by the stockholders/equity holders (the mom, presumably). Ok now the mom disappeared. I guess he is in charge unless she reappears or he’s arrested for crimes.
Or you could have him working there as a consultant before the founder dies (like in the book, based on the summary) and bending people to his will so that he is able to take de facto control when the shooting happens.
jingleheimerschitt t1_ja8kiq1 wrote
I'm going to include some spoilers here, but I encourage you to finish the series for the full effect. The thing that might help you to know is that the owner of the company is >!very young and isn't very good at running a company!<, and I'd guess he doesn't have lawyers or an HR department or really anything that most truly successful businesses have. Again, it's not a hyper-realistic story and suspending disbelief is useful. It may just not be for you, but the lack of realism is truly part of the story and part of what makes Patoff so intriguing.
>!The owner of the company, Sang, is 20 years old. Patoff's pitch is that Sang's company is within months of folding and that Patoff can save the company -- and make Sang immortal as the founder of the company -- but only if he signs the company over to Patoff upon his death. Everything Patoff does after Sang's death is in service to that agreement, and he ends up being successful in saving the company and achieving immortality for Sang, but in a monkey's paw kind of way. Sang's employees are as clueless as Sang about normal business dealings, and their desires, fears, and innermost thoughts are being manipulated by Patoff as he maneuvers to get the company back on its feet and achieve Sang's immortality. Patoff uses what he knows about the main characters -- which he appears to find in some really creative ways! -- to manipulate them into doing things that end up showing them who they really are and what they really want in the end (mostly in a bad way, like finding they can utterly debase themselves for the company's benefit). Basically, Patoff is the devil and Sang made a deal with him.!<
ETA: I just saw your edits with examples and, I mean, you need to watch more than 25% of a show if you want to understand the story. All of that is addressed. I'm not saying you'll love the way it's addressed, but I think a lot of people are trying to make this show and the story it's telling into something they just aren't. It's not a procedural. It's not a whodunnit. It's not Succession or Mythic Quest. It's a story about this strange dude named Regus Patoff who somehow manages to take over this big, high-profile company after the strange death of its founder despite all the reasons it shouldn't have happened that way.
LobsterVirtual100 t1_ja8nvvo wrote
Yeah you sum it up well, the premise of the show and style it chases leans into the absurdity and the surreal nature of the story— which seems like a lot of the audience is having trouble picking up.
Imo I think because the show is a comedy but playing itself so straight and dramatic (which arguably plays up the comedic effect of things).
People disappointed the cake doesn’t taste like the frosting.
jingleheimerschitt t1_ja8ols0 wrote
>Imo I think because the show is a comedy but playing itself so straight and dramatic (which arguably plays up the comedic effect of things).
This is 1) why I love Burn After Reading and 2) why some people don't think BAR is very good/funny. I'm going to think about this high-drama veneer on a dark comedy on my rewatch of The Consultant this week!
cello12345 t1_jaamftt wrote
the upskirt floor was there before he got there tho and I don't remember them explaining how that got there
jingleheimerschitt t1_jaao4i9 wrote
How the floor got there? I don’t understand your question, sorry.
cello12345 t1_jaas3w9 wrote
the floor with the see-through bottom. Basically any building built today has opaque floors, even if the rest of it is transparent glass so women employees can wear skirts and dresses without exposing themselves. seemed like it was just there to be cool/omnimous/chekov's gun when it's not something any architect would sign off on for a place a business.
jingleheimerschitt t1_jacwbif wrote
Personally, I just figured it was one of those things very rich, very young gaming company owners would do for the lolz -- architects can be paid off like anyone else, and it's possible decisions like that are what led Compware to be in the financial situation it was in.
Accurate-Sprinkles-9 t1_ja8zrvy wrote
dude, if someone dies of halitosis in the first two episodes of a show and no one in the show acts like that is weird I'm not gonna watch the rest for that to see if it is all explained.
crap show
jingleheimerschitt t1_ja9132u wrote
Or you could watch the rest to see why they don’t think that’s weird instead of writing two essays about what a show you haven’t watched “should” have done.
Accurate-Sprinkles-9 t1_ja93eev wrote
You've gotten me confused with one of the other people you are arguing with about how they aren't smart enough to understand the show mate
jingleheimerschitt t1_ja93yg8 wrote
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to watch a show to understand it. If you don’t want to watch it, cool, but you don’t get to complain about not understanding why things happen the way they do.
SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaa2rhc wrote
> I couldn’t get past the fact that the plot seemed to happen in a very unlikely/borderline impossible way in order to set up Waltz coming in.
There is a pretty clear reason for this that is later explained.
I'm seeing a lot of comments from people who are missing things or quitting before answers are given and then criticizing things that are explained.
hc600 t1_jaabsv7 wrote
I mean, is the explanation that he just magically makes everyone dumb with his Jedi mind tricks? Because that’s still bad writing! The two main characters are smart enough and have enough free will to go through the camera footage but not smart enough to check the bylaws? That are probably public! Or call the lawyers?
SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaadb1v wrote
I mean, it's not 'jedi mind tricks', >!he is literally the Devil!< and there is a ton of evidence that shows this. They have flashbacks to his meeting with Sang that specifically elaborate on what he had over him and why Sang goes along with it.
Valiantheart t1_jaarw8w wrote
Wow I bailed after the first episode, and based on your spoiler I already figured out the main plot twist. The scene in Sang's office kind of made that obvious.
hc600 t1_jaae051 wrote
Your spoiler shows up in the notifications preview I got fyi
But yeah that’s a kinda dumb cop out then because he can just do anything anyways as an overpowered villain than what’s the point of any plot at all?
And if he can just make the founder do whatever he wants, it’s still weird to make him sign a consulting contract and not also make him sign a stockholder resolution giving him actual authority.
SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaaf7uy wrote
> because he can just do anything anyways as an overpowered villain than what’s the point of any plot at all? > >
Because he's not omnipotent. Most of what he does is pitting the employees against one another and corrupting them. I don't know, you're arguing all this is dumb but you didn't even watch it or bother to understand lol
hc600 t1_jaai13g wrote
Ok but why do his powers allow him to coerce the founder into making him a consultant under a contract but to not also appoint him to the board?
Like, I understand perfectly what you are saying. It’s still lazy writing for the writers to make it seem like a consulting contract is important when it would have no impact on the line of succession in the event the CEO and board member dies. Like, it’s just silly to show him forcing the founder to do it with ominous music and a blow job when that’s the wrong legal document! Like, that doesn’t seem like something that gets explained later. That seems like the writers think that corporate succession is super complicated and mysterious and don’t know you can usually just look it up on the Secretary of State of the state’s your in’s website and see!
It’s like if he used his powers to make them turn off the water to turn off the computer servers. That’s the wrong utility! The servers run on electricity! Even if he’s magic, words still have to have meaning or else the whole thing is incoherent.
It’s the same kinda bad writing as late game of thrones where a character is supposed to be clever because they surprise people with an army, but really it’s just the other characters being dumb by not having scouts. If you’re gonna write a show about medieval style warfare, it’s bad writing to not know the basics of how it works. And if you’re gonna write a show set in California, where the entire plot is a random magic man taking over a company, maybe spend some time googling it? Instead of using terms that don’t even mean what you seem to think they mean.
SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaajwpx wrote
lol you're faulting the show bad writing when you literally didn't even watch it! This is seriously ridiculous. There is absolutely no point in arguing with you, you have no idea what you're talking about. Half of your complaints don't even make sense within the context of the show.
hc600 t1_jaakkjw wrote
Ok so in what episode do they explain why he forced the founder to sign a contract making him a consultant but didn’t bother to force him to sign a written consent or resolution putting him on the board? Or explaining why he allowed the two employees to investigate him, but magically made them too stupid to look up the bylaws or call the company’s lawyer? In what episode do they explain why the company has no HR and no lawyers?
SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaamdjv wrote
>Like, I understand perfectly what you are saying.
No, you clearly don't.
>It’s still lazy writing for the writers to make it seem like a consulting contract is important when it would have no impact on the line of succession in the event the CEO and board member dies. Like, it’s just silly to show him forcing the founder to do it with ominous music and a blow job when that’s the wrong legal document! Like, that doesn’t seem like something that gets explained later.
Well, yes, it does get explained later, for the most part. But if you're going to nitpick wether or not it was the correct legal document instead of just going with the idea of what is going on then you're just looking for faults and were never going to enjoy it.
Almost none of your very specific complaints are actually relevant to the show beyond just being mad about minute details that have no bearing on the themes or story.
> why he forced the founder to sign a contract making him a consultant but didn’t bother to force him to sign a written consent or resolution putting him on the board?
Since, for some reason, I can't respond to the person below me who said I didn't know what I was talking about, I'll address that here:
The company is literally failing because Sang doesn't know what he's doing. There are several conversations about this and how everyone is in shock that he was not only running the company into the ground but hadn't put any safeguards in place.
Accurate-Sprinkles-9 t1_jaaqour wrote
you're literally talking out your ass man, they don't explain those things. the whole company runs in ways that make no sense before Waltz shows up. it's like the people who came up with the story only know about companies from tv
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments