Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

travio t1_ja6iuh3 wrote

The title of my sex tape!

264

Untalented-Host t1_ja84dvh wrote

This comment had more dramatic effect and comedic timing than in all 8 episodes of the show

5

riesendulli t1_ja99mqz wrote

Little weird sounds about an alright name for a penis

1

jogoso2014 t1_ja6i0mk wrote

I enjoyed it.

Waltz is playing the kind of person that got him Oscars. That he outshines the rest of the cast is the biggest problem.

There’s a lot of loose strings too.

Still kept me guessing while binging.

141

Hidethegoodbiscuits OP t1_ja6j3j7 wrote

They come off as inexperienced child actors compared to him.

72

the6thReplicant t1_ja6ptdo wrote

I'm going to agree that the main characters around him were not at the same level as he was.

But really loved the show. Had a Cronenberg vibe to it.

33

krulp t1_ja7ysk5 wrote

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.

23

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!”

10

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

4

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

1

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.

−4

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.

6

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.

2

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!

2

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

1

jingleheimerschitt t1_jaao4i9 wrote

How the floor got there? I don’t understand your question, sorry.

2

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.

1

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.

2

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

−3

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.

6

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

0

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.

2

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.

4

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?

0

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.

3

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.

1

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.

−1

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

4

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.

0

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.

1

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?

0

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.

1

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

−1

jubbergun t1_ja7suu0 wrote

I don't know about that. I haven't finished watching it yet but I've liked Brittany O'Grady's acting so far. Maybe not on par with Waltz, but that's not a fair comparison if you think about it. These are younger actors at the beginning of their careers being compared to a popular Academy Award winner.

6

Cruzifixio t1_ja9ssy6 wrote

>but that's not a fair comparison if you think about it.

I disagree, Tarantino had some young "uknown talent" coexists with him and they held their game.

What I would agree tho, is that either by being near him or by mere necessity, the two main actors do get WAY better by the end.

1

SQUID_FUCKER t1_jaa2zo4 wrote

> Tarantino had some young "uknown talent" coexists with him and they held their game. > >

Who are you referring to?

2

hghlnder72 t1_ja7zpgi wrote

After first episode I was hooked. Waltz was brilliant in it and the story was very well done. Binged it in one day. "thank you for the drink..... Craig" the pauses and way he delivered his lines is just... Fantastic.

2

RuairiSpain t1_ja8tqr7 wrote

Finished episode 3. Fairly bland story and not sure I'll continue.

Anyone willing to convince me if it's worth the time?

1

SkynetFuture t1_ja6mmjr wrote

I enjoyed the show, it was fun and had me guessing on all the weird stuff...but LITERALLY NOTHING IS EVER EXPLAINED. The ending to the show SUCKED ASS.

82

Unclesmekky t1_ja7htez wrote

The endless kinda annoyed me, why did he have a gold skeleton inside him,

16

AlwaysAmerican t1_ja9wcvc wrote

This annoyed me the most. What was the point of the gold bones?

5

SophieTheCat t1_jablr2n wrote

Maybe the it’s trying to insinuate the replacement of the human workforce by robots? Just a wild guess.

2

TripleJeopardy3 t1_ja9ca17 wrote

It was very disappointing. As you said, no answers to many of the questions. The show was very different from the book ending, as well. That may be part of the problem. The book ending was bad for other reasons.

I think the showrunners decided to leave us with all these questions to justify a season 2, which is lazy writing. I got halfway through and just wanted it to be over so there was some closure. I doubt I would watch season 2 if they renew it, but I also think it will get cancelled.

I got Lost or Twin Peaks vibes - the writers were more concerned with crazy twists and ideas and not concerned with payoff.

6

[deleted] t1_ja7evpt wrote

[removed]

2

monkey314 t1_ja6szgg wrote

Could've Consulted someone on how to make a good show that's for sure 🥁💥

40

CrazyRaiderfan t1_ja6n2mr wrote

It was so weird I kept watching it but I agree ultimately it was just meh.

34

JRansomBioDermKiller t1_ja7omjt wrote

I thought it looked eh, however, lol I seriously contemplated watching it strictly because of Waltz. I just don’t think I care enough to commit.

6

Lulzsecks t1_ja7ct85 wrote

Kinda weird review to lead with not having watched past episode 3.

22

militantcookie t1_ja7lk3h wrote

That's how most tv reviews are unfortunately, they review the pilot and score the whole season based on it.

7

rtseel t1_ja7z2ea wrote

I don't think that's unfortunate at all. In this time of TV abundance, if a show hasn't grabbed me by episode 3, I'm out. There are way too many good stuff out there to watch.

Gone are the days where you had to wait until season 3 of TNG to see it achieve brilliance.

2

Lulzsecks t1_ja81fq4 wrote

Me too, not saying everyone has to watch the whole show lol. Just people who elect to write a review probably should

6

militantcookie t1_ja80pwv wrote

TNG season 1 wouldn't have a chance today. Sat down to watch it with an 8 year old, even he found it ridiculous.

3

efs120 t1_ja91ww0 wrote

And critics revisited it when it got better, right?

2

militantcookie t1_ja9vixz wrote

Different times though, today the series would have been cancelled before any critic had the chance to check again.

0

efs120 t1_ja9vy48 wrote

Probably not, it would be on Paramount+, Star Trek fans would complain about it, then it would comfortably get renewed for a second season above their protests because someone is watching it even though everyone in the fan base claims to hate it.

0

reddit_beer_map t1_ja8d1i0 wrote

Some shows are products of their time and that context matters. You're right that TNG S1 wouldn't have a chance today.

However, TNG miraculously evolved into a consistently excellent and timeless show at the start of S3, even if it started getting a little uneven in seasons 6 and 7. The TNG of S3 and beyond would still be a hit today.

1

DoingbusinessPR t1_ja8s23l wrote

This mentality is why tv series start off great and then crash and burn. I would rather stick with a mediocre first half of a series that builds up to something that pays off for your time investment than a show that starts off great but jumps the shark well before the end.

But I guess our collective attention spans are so diminished that if something doesn’t grab hold immediately, we run back to our phones and social media for that sweet serotonin.

2

rtseel t1_ja8v27e wrote

Sure, blame me and my lack of attention span for the fact that there are tons of high quality TV shows so much that I can afford picking those that suit me immediately instead of waiting for months or years and hope for the best.

While you're at it, you can also blame me for being older and having a steady work, which are also big factors in me having much less time to spend and being more picky in how I spend my "free" time, which isn't that free anymore.

Blame me also because I have too many other interesting things to do, such as riding bike, hiking, reading books, playing guitar, playing with my cats, instead of being endlessly glued to my TV, hoping that any mediocre show becomes a masterwork if only I give him a chance.

Fuck me for having a life, right?

−1

DoingbusinessPR t1_ja8ylg9 wrote

No one is saying fuck you for having a life, but your requirements of new shows “achieving brilliance” within the first 3 episodes or else you bail on the show is definitely a sentiment that puts restraints on the people working hard to tell a story that is different, new, or complex. If you can decide whether a show is worth your time in 3 episodes or less, that’s great for you, but there are plenty of people out there willing to give a story time to develop, since most of the greats don’t become great immediately. If you care about stories and how they’re told, you’re missing out on a lot of good ones if you can’t delay your gratification.

3

rtseel t1_ja9gqz7 wrote

I never said I want them to achieve brilliance, that was specifically in relation to TNG. I just want them to compel me enough to keep me watching the next episode.

> There are plenty of people out there willing to give a story time to develop, since most of the greats don’t become great immediately

Not anymore, as shows are cancelled more and more early, and it's no a recent phenomenon either. At least today's streaming shows have one full season in the can before they're cancelled. Others before didn't have that much chance and were cancelled after a handful of episodes. And that was before, as you put it, "we run back to our phones and social media for that sweet serotonin."

And again, the problem is that there's too many choice now and time is limited. Sure, when all that's on the air is Magnum and Hunter, I would have gladly waited for a show to develop because frankly there's nothing else to watch.

In the 3 months time period where you have Atlanta, Andor, The White Lotus, The Crown, Wednesday, House of the Dragons and the Sandman being released, you also have several hundreds of other shows premiering (including some as high profile as Rings of Power or the Yellowstone shows). You can't honestly expect people to give their chance to each of these shows and blame people for their failures.

1

efs120 t1_ja92a6e wrote

Blame the distributors for not making more episodes available to critics for review. The most famous case of this is Bojack Horseman. Netflix sent out the first six episodes before the show aired and those are pretty meh episodes. It took a BIG creative leap in the second half of the season. There were critics who when the show came out kept watching and said as much. But if Netflix had supplied them with those eps to begin with, the reviews would have been a lot better.

1

tehPeteos t1_ja874d2 wrote

The mad part is that the first three episodes are arguably the better ones; if they'd watched just one or two more, it's very unlikely that the review would have been as positive.

1

STRamRod t1_ja6o609 wrote

Did anyone read the book? I really don't want a season 2, but is there more to the story? I feel like they got everything wrong that Severance got right.

21

nowadaysyouth t1_ja6rkte wrote

I know it’s based off a book or some other shit but when waltz can’t walk up stairs and then face fucks the ceo it just screamed of frank Reynolds getting real weird with it solely for the sake of getting weird with it. And for that reason I was out.

14

SQUID_FUCKER t1_ja7kv6p wrote

Both of these things are explained though and not just 'weird for the sake of weird'.

11

AnukkinEarthwalker t1_ja78vl1 wrote

Yea. That was not needed as it really had no meaning. And any other time there was no vibe like that between him and that character. Plus basically no resolution on what the consultant actually is.. to know if he just made them see that or not.

1

mickeyflinn t1_ja79z4r wrote

> ...and Mostly Mediocre.”

So pretty much just like everything else Prime churns out.

9

jdbolick t1_ja7q3wt wrote

The English is really good. Chaske Spencer nailed it.

1

lightsongtheold t1_ja93ca4 wrote

That was a BBC show…

1

jdbolick t1_ja95vz8 wrote

It was a joint production between the BBC and Amazon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_(TV_series)

1

lightsongtheold t1_ja981z1 wrote

Yep…with BBC undoubtedly the lead in both funding and influence.

−1

jdbolick t1_ja9d861 wrote

There is no evidence to support that claim.

1

lightsongtheold t1_ja9g5cw wrote

Variety seem to think differently. They have Amazon taking international rights to a “BBC show”.

−2

jdbolick t1_ja9mx26 wrote

Amazon Studios is listed as a producer, not just a distributor. I don't know why you're so desperate to pretend that Amazon had limited involvement, but you're flat out wrong.

2

mickeyflinn t1_jac8dxo wrote

No it isn't. That show was a disjointed dull mess.

1

jdbolick t1_jacdt78 wrote

Calling it "dull" was a mistake because it tells everyone who did watch it that you never did, which is a really weird thing for you to lie about.

1

anasui1 t1_ja7avyr wrote

I guess you mean "any streaming service" but you are right nonethless

−2

Not_Smrt t1_ja7h11c wrote

Netflix churns out a lot of good content, even if it is just by law of averages.

4

hagbardceline69420 t1_ja7loay wrote

so does Apple imo, and i like HBO Max as well, Paramount also has some interesting stuff.

5

rtseel t1_ja7zm88 wrote

A couple of years ago I would have said the same thing, but I just looked at Netflix's output for March and there's not a single TV show that interests me, out of the 30 or so. The only reason I'm keeping it is because I'm sharing the account with family, but once that's gone, I'm out as well.

2

reddit_beer_map t1_ja8budx wrote

that might be a result of your own changing tastes as you get older.

1

rtseel t1_ja8vmdu wrote

Hold on, are you telling me that I'm out of touch with young people? That can't be true! Just yesterday I was listening to Nirvana and watching The Simpsons!

1

AnukkinEarthwalker t1_ja796uv wrote

Watched it all this afternoon. It was ok. But so many holes..inconsistency in the character development. The main 3 all changed so much without much reason.

Plus there was next to no resolution in the end other than the "what he's made of" bit. Also seemed like the consultant had done much worse stuff previously.. and towards the end outside of the what the show presented in general.

I mean its entertaining but some really poor execution in character building and the story itself overall

7

giacco t1_ja783st wrote

Binged it. It's not bad, just expect a weird dark comedy. The worst thing about it is that it doesnt explain everything at the end, and there's way too many loose threads. They didn't own up to the mystery that was set up at the beginning, and that brings it down a major amount for me to the point that I wouldn't recommend it.

6

Slartibartfast102 t1_ja7li3w wrote

Yea I finished this last night. Each episode was generally entertaining and interesting, and Waltz is infinitely watchable, so I wouldn't call it bad, but I had a strong feeling the ending was going to be wildly unsatisfying and boy was I right on the money. Such a stupid ending. Not even bad, just...nothing. No real answers. No real horror. Definitely a C- show at best.

6

Tucana66 t1_ja7xbrl wrote

(No spoilers) The final episode was poorly conceived. Complete waste of time. Ranks with the original Dexter series finale for bad writing.

Which is unfortunate, as The Consultant had some intriguing story twists before falling apart. Did the creatives have a good initial idea? Yeah. And that’s about all.

6

itsinatin t1_ja7mrsl wrote

Feels a bit like they saw Severance in production and were like “hey we need one of those!”

4

reddit_beer_map t1_ja7ryhg wrote

I watched the first episode and kept thinking, "doesn't this company have lawyers? Isn't everything the consultant is doing is illegal under California law?"

4

Untalented-Host t1_ja823la wrote

Seriously and they called it "one of the most successful mobile games company in Los Angeles" but no HR, lawyers, employment rights, and contract law?

In AppleTV Mythic Quest, a comedy show about another successful LA mobile games company:

  • Antics? HR always involved in like every episode

  • Business stuff? Montreal/Ubisoft is calling every 2 minutes to yell.

  • Staff? Composed of CEO, VP, and a shit ton of directors, managers, and executives. Even when they're arguing with each other, projects have negotiations and hierarchy

  • Discrimination? Half the staff has a boner for labor laws, discrimination laws, contract and employment rights

Meanwhile in the consultant, just the first episode:

  • Employee executive with his own office cries his eyes out after being informed he smells and is given a mop bucket to spongebathe himself in his office himself... a mop bucket previously used to clean up human fluids in the previous scene. An employee of no importance or anything to the show. In Cali/USA, this dude would be winning super lawsuits

  • Wheelchair black woman gets fired for being literally 1 second late after given 1 hour to arrive to work by the CEO or be fired. Disabled employees have protections against these types of abuse. Super lawsuit

  • New CEO just takes over the company. No HR, no board of directors, no managers, shareholders. Nothing. Oh amd why the old ceo's mom can't take over? Reason: speaks no english. That's it. No hiring of a proxy or translator, no translating app, not even a single Korean in the company to help translate? Weakest excuse ever

  • New 2 minute CEO just cancels all company projects without any plan, research, head company, or shareholders caring. It's a successful mobile game company, half of gamers would be incensed

  • How is main girl, the secretary, the highest ranked person to operate the company

6

Senna_65 t1_ja8oypm wrote

Woah there. She's not a secretary...she's a creative liaison!

4

tehPeteos t1_ja88fhv wrote

'You just don't understand though; you thought it was (x), when it's actually (y)! You're just not smart enough to get it!'

..is the gist of many of the arguments I've seen in favour of this show, lol - no /s in sight.

It'll be forgotten in a month or two, as it should be.

3

reddit_beer_map t1_ja86tzi wrote

great comment, thank you! You've made me want to watch Mythic Quest now -- I had been on the fence but this comment pushed me over.

2

Accurate-Sprinkles-9 t1_jaaoiv2 wrote

Yeah weird that no one knows about google translate which is free? The receptionist briefly talks about a translator but there are ads? Does this show happen in a dysotopia where everything is even more of a capitalist hellscape?

It was also hilarious when they order food at the food truck, and they take their names, and then immediately hand them the food. It would take way longer to make that. At least have a cut to them standing off to the side and talking and have their names call to seem like time passed.

2

hagbardceline69420 t1_ja9dbc5 wrote

If you want to watch a show about this industry, you're better off watching Mythic Quest, or Catch and Halt Fire.

It felt like someone got a pilot greenlit and didn't know what to do next.

1

hc600 t1_ja84ufi wrote

Ha yeah I am a lawyer and I kept yelling at the tv “WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS!” Like everyone just listens to this guy and just accepts that he is in charge? What do the governing documents say?

3

lauratheartwitch t1_ja7tzuo wrote

One of my friends from college is one of the actors in this show! I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet but everything I’ve seen looks pretty cool

4

Skerries t1_ja7x10q wrote

it's not gold but it has some meat on the bones

you should dip you toe into it

4

beezkneez415 t1_ja8ltmh wrote

Fargo season 3 did it better.

4

LeoLaDawg t1_ja74ce2 wrote

I watched it all today, but only because of Waltz. It wouldn't have made it past the first episode otherwise.

3

unit_101010 t1_ja7ovq3 wrote

Really couldn't get into it, unfortunately. Gave up after the first episode. It felt like a waste of talent and really no story to tell.

3

jingleheimerschitt t1_ja7tuax wrote

I absolutely loved it. It’s not so much a mystery as it is a story about a mysterious person, and the loose threads/remaining questions are supposed to be for you to answer for yourself, as with any good piece of literature. I can’t stop thinking about the big reveal and I’m planning to rewatch it soon so I can see how that reveal was hinted and teased earlier.

If you want to see what he’s made of…

2

WilliamClaudeRains t1_ja7x1iz wrote

Big reveal? Which is what exactly?

This show is written like a poor episode of Supernatural with Sam and Dean cut out of it. Don’t get me wrong, love me some Supernatural, but there are no “big reveals” in that sort of story.

4

jingleheimerschitt t1_ja7y1nx wrote

What I'm talking about is the >!gold skeleton. !<Not arguing that it's a big "twist" or anything, just that it's a big thing about the main character that isn't divulged right away and could be interpreted to mean a number of things -- about Patoff, about religion, about corporatism, about greed and what makes us human, etc.

2

WilliamClaudeRains t1_ja7yu1c wrote

Just watch supernatural— way more enjoyable. They at least are self aware the writing level they are producing is at.

2

jingleheimerschitt t1_ja7yxg2 wrote

I've seen Supernatural and prefer The Consultant.

1

Stonktaculous t1_ja9p6yy wrote

What hot garbage. I kept watching to see if it would get better but it never did. At least I now know that I don’t need to watch s2 if there is one.

2

Exotic-Bottle9628 t1_ja7ifld wrote

Mostly mediocre sounds really appealing to me, what with everything going on in the world.

1

dj_ghostcat t1_ja7sms9 wrote

Everything on Prime is basically terrible. They're getting owned by HBO and Apple TV.

1

conker1264 t1_ja7upy5 wrote

It started off great but got really weird in the 2nd half, lost interest at that point

1

PCBro t1_ja7z68n wrote

Interesting to review after only watching the first two to three episodes. I always figured reviewers actually watched all of what they reviewed so they actually knew what they were reviewing in totality…

1

reddit_beer_map t1_ja8beug wrote

usually there's some sort of text in a review that says "four episodes watched for review" or something like that.

3

PCBro t1_ja8d8ex wrote

That’s fair. I don’t often read reviews anymore so didn’t know that. I just find it strange. It’s like reviewing a movie based on only the first half hour.

Maybe this is why I found reviews generally unhelpful to me in finding things to watch and stopped reading them…

1

reddit_beer_map t1_ja8ez17 wrote

Reviewers would probably watch the entire season if it was released to them by the studio. But generally the reviewers are watching these shows in advance so the review can be published when the show actually debuts; and for whatever reason only the first X episodes are given to the reviewers to watch and review.

2

PCBro t1_ja8i2wk wrote

Interesting!

I appreciate the education here. Still think it a bizarre system/way to operate but I guess that just is what it is.

1

qp0n t1_ja7zeq4 wrote

>A responsible critic watches 2-3 episodes of a show before writing a review

Wait... what?

That's like saying "a responsible critic watches 20-30 minutes of a movie before writing a review"

1

Artyrizo t1_ja8d4p2 wrote

I can see the pitch now "Angel Heart but in Silicone Valley" and not as good.

Got bored after a bit. So maybe it picked up?

1

Hidethegoodbiscuits OP t1_ja6gxjo wrote

I lasted 15 minutes before nope-ing out.

0

jcpmojo t1_ja6jxw7 wrote

Lemme guess, the face fucking was too much?

5

reddit_beer_map t1_ja7s82q wrote

that was at the very end of the first episode, so that woulda been like 45 minutes in. But that is exactly where I decided that I wasn't interested in the show anymore.

6

WilliamClaudeRains t1_ja7zqki wrote

Anyone notice the terrible edits between takes where Waltz’ face morphs? Happens when he’s talking to Craig’s wife in the lobby by the door

0

flying_bacon t1_ja87hzw wrote

How is it being classified as a comedy? Its not even a dark comedy.

0

LZR0 t1_ja9iiqc wrote

I think you can sum up almost every Amazon original production as this lol

0

DougieJackpots t1_ja9jfca wrote

Prime is pretty terrible at scripted television.

0