What about the blood stain on the watch? It tells us about her job… or, at least, that’s she’s even more dangerous than we think. I always thought that small detail was very significant.
i really love how "vilainy" is portrayed in the movie : porco see himself as a vilain/pig because he his "undeserving", selfish, and he bring woe to his closest friends The pirate are vilains but are actually harmless, they are quite lost and savage but in the end they aren't a threat Curtis has a terrifying ego, he doesn't see himself as the pig he his, and yet has some honor and principles, a great rival to our protagonist. All of that while ; in the background, facism slowly rise, giving the whole movie a very bittersweet taste; we like those vilains because they are far less horrible than the truth of war and facism
1,2,3,4,5 are the best seasons, 5 pushing it, but not that bad. New Blood was a joke, they could have done so much better on that and they fucked up so much shit in it I can't wrap my head around why Michael signed off on it. There was so much shit that didn't make any sense and was just thrown together, I hated it. I'll stick with 1-5.
This same exact moral dilemma happened in the Death Note manga. The main character finds a notebook dropped by a demon that can kill anyone whose name he writes in the notebook. He decides to start killing criminals who have committed horrible crimes but either escaped justice or are still in prison, and it seems like he is a good guy, like the Punisher. That is until he has to face the decision of killing a detective who is going to find and capture him, or just giving up his pursuit of vigilante justice now that the stakes have been raised. He chooses to kill the detective, and then just like Walter White, that is when his moral character begins an irreversible descent.
I love Poirot but i never could’ve empathise with how much he was torn about turning them in, for me it always looked like an addiction to law (that fails to deliver justice)
I believe the writers wanted to exemplify the point that when faced with a moral dilemma not making a choice is still making a choice. One of Dexter's traits is an obsession with control. This can be seen through how he kills and his self monologuing trying to push down his desire to kill. I think the writers did punish Dexter an adequate amount by removing the choice of killing Doakes or running. The episode also displayed that Dexter at the end of the day is a killer, who people should not feel empathy towards. While Dexter does have a code the episode shows that Dexter would consider breaking his code.
This video makes a lot of good points, but fails to mention that Dexter does end up breaking his code. Multiple times. I agree with Doakes' death being kind of a cop-out in season 2, but I'm not sure the issue in season 7 is as big as it's made out to be considering by that point Dexter had already intentionally killed like 3 or 4 innocent people. Him struggling with the code was a big plot point after season 4.
I actually think David Suchet's version of "Murder on the Orient Express" is the worst of the ones mentioned, mainly due to Suchet forcing the writers to shoe-horn in Poirot being extremely Catholic in order to allow Suchet to spout his Christian morality all over the screen in the finale. In the book Poirot offers two solutions to the murder, one in which an unnamed outside party managed to board the train, kill the victim, and then leave the train before it started moving again, the other in which all the passengers conspired to kill the victim. He doesn't do any ridiculous theatrics about "GOD'S JUDGEMENT!!!", he just lays out the possible scenarios and retires from the case, leaving it up to the other passengers to decide which one they will tell the police. In the preproduction of Suchet's version, Suchet would only come back if the writers made Poirot heavily religious, because Suchet is a pretty hardcore Christian fundamentalist, so Poirot suddenly starts proselytizing all over the place about Christian morality and being judged by God, which kind of makes Poirot seem like an idiot, since he's meant to be this extremely analytical and rational detective, following the clues studiously wherever they lead, and there isn't really anything less rational than deciding the ultimate arbiter of all morality is a god whose book is full of internal inconsistencies and self-contradictory orders. It might make for a good moral dilemma, but it very much lessens Poirot as a detective. 🤷♂
Interesting. I didn't know that about Suchet being hardcore Christian. But I still like the episode and I don't mind that Poirot is flawed. I think it humanizes him. Throughout the show he makes several judgement calls about people who are somewhat guilty but not of murder and he just lets them go. Even though he does that here it was still painful for him.
@@davescripted3796 Yeah, I understand. I just find it so ridiculous that this genius, greatest living detective takes his personal framework of morality from the *_Catholic church_* of all places. I also hate that Suchet used his professional clout to force his religious views down the audience's throat. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Which is a shame, because Suchet really is a fantastic Poirot in all other aspects.
Dexter is a great show if you allow yourself to truly believe Dexter is the good guy. It's a fantastic show to binge if you turn off your brain and just think "Yay Dexter killing bad people and can never get caught"
I watched this when i was a kid however asi said i was a kid, but for some reason it never left my mind, something like its just there in the corner of my mind waiting to be understood
I think Porco did break the curse later in life. I too have dealt with self imposed guilt, and I find the first step to overcoming it usually a step you don't realize is happing at all. Otherwise you would consciously tell yourself something that dismisses that step. Once you find something that breaks that curse, without realizing it you'll repeatedly do it, cuz subconsciously it makes you feel really good. Then next time you try to condemn yourself to guilt again, it'll feel absurd. Cuz you've given yourself so much evidence that you don't deserve that feeling. Self imposed guilt is a lie, and you just need to make that lie so obviously fake, that even you can't believe it if you want to.
This didn’t happen in the show Dexter. Dexter was about to turn himself in. He wasn’t trying to frame Doakes; rather, he was about to take the fall for the bad things he had done. He was telling his sister and wife goodbye, hinting at his intentions without fully confessing. In the end, it was Lila who killed Doakes. Long story short, he wasn’t planting evidence. Please watch the show before making a video about it, and pay more attention.
I saw it as Dexter- the character- not understanding moral dilemmas. I don’t think he was ever a good guy, he’s always been using twisted reasoning to justify murder. He follows his code because of a compulsive need to, not because of his moral compass. It’s like an itch that can’t be scratched if he doesn’t follow the code. I liked that it all rang hollow. I like that it ended with him alone, having ruined the lives of his loved ones, the world being arguably a worse place for him having done what he did. Dexter doesn’t work as a hero, but if you look at it through the lens of “he thinks he’s the good guy and he’s wrong” then it gives the show much needed perspective.
Fio being sexualized is a given because she is a young blossoming woman trying to get someone's attention. If you've ever been in that situation, you'd know.
I stand by that the core issue is the writers thought Dexter was a hero when he was always a villian. He's a sociopathic seiral killer, the fact that he's killing "bad people" is just an excuse he gives himself to give him to his murderous impulses. Breaking Bad is everything Dexter could have been strictly because the writers understood this core rule. Best way i think to honestly examine dexters actions is to question would he kill someone like himself. A man who has murdered thousands because he claims they are all "evil"?
This is a TV show, not that I’m defended anything it did, even though it’s not as bad as most make it out to be. The show rarely had to deal with moral dilemmas because Dexter Always covered his tracks, and New Blood was his demons catching up with him.
Season 1-4 were nearly flawless. S3 had a few pacing issues but nothing that really detracted from it all... And while the later seasons def had some highlights and great moments even, the whole package and overall progression didnt feel NEARLY as cohesive or meaningful as the first ones. The New Blood season started out pretty great and ALMOST made it seem like the ending was salvageable... Until it absolutely blew it torwards the end, and for whatever the fuck reason didnt even reunite Dexter with Angel nor any of the old cast, and instead decided to focus on the new "outsiders" cast which, except for the "villain" and his son obviously, wasnt half as interesting as the old one. And that whole deal w the podcast lady felt like a total snoozefest as well
Never liked the show exactly for the reason Dexter is a sociopath and doesn't have any moral dilemmas. It's a very shallow character planted to pose a "good but evil guy" role. I always thought the show would be far more interesting with a Luther type of main character - a tired man trying heavy to fulfill his job and do a greater good where his job fails him to do so. P. S. Oh, yeah, and imaginary characters is such a lazy writing
While I agree with your overarching premise and love the comparisons, I could not disagree more with your season rankings😭 seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all far better than the vast majority of all TV seasons ever made. Season 5 is a clear, off-a-cliff drop off. It’s good with a great idea that’s executed quite well, but the storylines were more disconnected. Season 6 is even worse about these issues. And season 7 is when I gave up. That season is actively bad; I’d rather have silence. I thought Debra finding out was an abysmal narrative choice, as was Dexter’s relationship with Hannah. I’ve heard season 8 is better but I simply couldn’t get past halfway of season 7. I’d be interested to hear why you thought that season was even remotely close to 4 or even 5 and 6, from an entertainment perspective at least. Great points about the moral dilemmas though, aspects I’d never considered myself
I will say, humor of course being so subjective, I do agree with the old adage that a lot of comedy lives in subverting expectations. Some of the best ways to do this are 1) devising a situation so outrageous and inconceivable that everything is a surprise, or 2) leaning into a very well-worn social script and then changing even just one detail (e.g. the meme where the car salesman says "this bad boy can fit so much f*ckin spaghetti," which is funny because you expect him to try and impress you, but that's something that nobody would normally think to say about a car). This situation isn't outrageous enough to make everything surprising, nor does it really subvert any expectations; you expect a fit, sober person to beat some drunk morons in a fight, and that's exactly what happens. Sure, being naked during a fight is different, but also like you say, we'd expect a person who had all their shit stolen to fight back, especially if they think they can win, so it doesn't subvert that expectation either. My attempt to make this scene funnier would be to have the fight not happen, Maddy just chases them off or something, gets the clothes back, realizes Percy's clothes are still missing, then sees him coming out of the water fully clothed, having not actually disrobed. That would subvert expectations, it would be believable from Percy's character (being shy and awkward and not very worldly), and it would be shorter, which I think would serve the setup of the joke better. I don't know if that still counts as physical comedy, and you'd have to reframe the setup so that we never see him get naked, but I'd enjoy it!
