# Lovecraft Country S01E04 "A History of Violence" OAD 09/06/2020



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

*spoilers*

This week (official episode description):



> After Christina mysteriously shows up at her doorstep, Leti confronts Atticus about his plan to surreptitiously return to Florida. Later, in search of missing pages to a crucial text, Leti, Tic, and Montrose head to Boston, with Hippolyta and Diana along for the ride. Back in Chicago, a handsome stranger nurses Ruby's disappointment over a squandered job opportunity.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I thought this episode was pretty campy. I suppose they've been going for that, to some extent, in every episode. But this week was like an Indiana Jones adventure!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Yeah, I didn't like this one as much. I hope they get back to the more horror side of things.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I enjoyed it. It was like Indiana Jones, National Treasure and A Night at the Museum decided to have a three-way baby. And then some rando Stephen King book got involved, just because.

And this popped out.

Fun episode. Jurnee Smollett is killing it. Ruby, her half-sister, is doing pretty good too.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I liked it a lot too. It was a fun Indiana Jones-ish episode.

"Jesse Owens ain't got sh*t on me!"

Time travel was mentioned. I guess I can expect a Back To The Future or Groundhog Day episode soon.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

_...showrunner Misha Green cited Richard Donner's The Goonies as the primary inspiration for the gang's adventure through an underground cavern populated with death traps, a lost ship, and treasure in the form of a being from another world. _

'Lovecraft Country' Delves Into "A History of Violence" | Hollywood Reporter


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

They certainly underplayed that the basement under the museum in Boston is magically connected to the basement under Leti's house in Chicago...

I was thinking, "Wait, what? Did that actually happen?" It wasn't until the others were driving back to Chicago alone that I was sure.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> They certainly underplayed that the basement under the museum in Boston is magically connected to the basement under Leti's house in Chicago...
> 
> I was thinking, "Wait, what? Did that actually happen?" It wasn't until the others were driving back to Chicago alone that I was sure.


The first clue (or at least the first I noticed) was when the dead body floated by and Leti said it looked like one of her neighbors who had gone missing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

getbak said:


> The first clue (or at least the first I noticed) was when the dead body floated by and Leti said it looked like one of her neighbors who had gone missing.


Yeah, pretty much the only clue unless you recognized her elevator...which I didn't until it was too late enough for me to feel slightly dumb about it. It was only when the aunt talked about them already being back in Chicago that it finally dawned on me what had happened.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, pretty much the only clue unless you recognized her elevator...which I didn't until it was too late enough for me to feel slightly dumb about it. It was only when the aunt talked about them already being back in Chicago that it finally dawned on me what had happened.


I recognized the elevator, and immediately assumed it was the same one. Then somehow as the scenes unfolded, I convinced myself that this couldn't possibly be the same one, and that there just must be a bunch of identical looking elevators in this world. Then they rode up in it, and I was unsure if it was truly the same one, or if I blinked and missed them heading home, and then was confused when the car was driving back without them, then was extra confused about what was seen on the map, causing the driver to turn around and drive in the other direction, not being sure if it was towards or away from home, or the museum. Sometimes I blink, or get distracted for a moment, and am not sure if I missed something critical. For example, if I had blinked during the last 3 seconds...

Regardless, this has turned into one of those shows where I feel the need to go skim a recap after watching to make sure I've at least gotten all the facts that were presented.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I enjoyed it. It was like Indiana Jones, National Treasure and A Night at the Museum decided to have a three-way baby. And then some rando Stephen King book got involved, just because.
> 
> And this popped out.
> 
> Fun episode. Jurnee Smollett is killing it. Ruby, her half-sister, is doing pretty good too.


This exactly. It was fun, and much prefer this to classic horror. First thing I did while watching with my daughter was start to hum the Raiders of the Lost Ark theme.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm enjoying this, though very confused at times 
I found it odd that Letita said to Atticus last week that she was a virgin "it was my first time", but this week told Tree ("Of course I know, remember that time in High School?") — With the "spells" having them see things (i.e. when in the house they Letita was with and Atticus that was not really Atticus), was that really Letita who said it was her first time?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I think Tree told Atticus that he and Letitia had been together in high school, and Tic told Letitia what Tree had said, and Letitia is now telling Tree that she know he lied about it.

Anyway, that's how I understood the exchange.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

madscientist said:


> I think Tree told Atticus that he and Letitia had been together in high school, and Tic told Letitia what Tree had said, and Letitia is now telling Tree that she know he lied about it.
> 
> Anyway, that's how I understood the exchange.


What I recall is Tree said to Letitia "You know why they call me Tree, most men have two legs, I have three". To which Letitia said "I know, we f*(#$ in high school, remember"


----------



## hairyblue (Feb 25, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> What I recall is Tree said to Letitia "You know why they call me Tree, most men have two legs, I have three". To which Letitia said "I know, we f*(#$ in high school, remember"


Burn!

I liked the episode. Hope there is a new one tonight.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

hairyblue said:


> Hope there is a new one tonight.


There is. E5 "Strange Case".

Normally I spoiler episode titles, but in this case,_ Strange Case_ could apply to every episode we've seen so far. And probably every one we'll ever see.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1304087180164374529


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

madscientist said:


> I think Tree told Atticus that he and Letitia had been together in high school, and Tic told Letitia what Tree had said, and Letitia is now telling Tree that she know he lied about it.
> 
> Anyway, that's how I understood the exchange.





Tony_T said:


> What I recall is Tree said to Letitia "You know why they call me Tree, most men have two legs, I have three". To which Letitia said "I know, we f*(#$ in high school, remember"


Her exact quote was "Shouldn't I already know that since we ------ in high school, Seymore?"

I agree with madscientist that she was letting Tree know that she knows what he's been saying about her.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

My initial point was that since Letita told Tic she was a virgin (“it was my first time”), maybe that wasn’t the “real” Letitia.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

@getbak That seems like a spoiler for the next episode. (It's a mild spoiler, but still a spoiler.) Would you mind putting it spoiler tags? Thanks!

I'll go ahead an start a thread for that episode, given it just started airing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Um...how is that a spoiler?!?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> My initial point was that since Letita told Tic she was a virgin ("it was my first time"), maybe that wasn't the "real" Letitia.


I understood your point, and I remember what she said and who she said it to. I'm saying, I disagree that there's anything to suggest that it wasn't just the "real" Letitia.

To be more clear, I think it happened like this: Tree brags that he and Letitia had sex back in high school (even though they definitely did not, which we know because Letitia says she's a virgin until Ep03).

Tic (or someone) tells Letitia what Tree said about them having sex.

Tree brags to Letitia that he has "three legs". Letitia says, "shouldn't I already know, since we had sex in high school?" and gives him a look to let him know that she knows he's been lying about this. Tree is flustered and embarrassed.

That's all. No need for a phantom Letitia. At least, as I mentioned above, that's how I see it.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Um...how is that a spoiler?!?


It's talking about tonight's episode.. at least I think it is.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

No, that's a direct quote from last week's episode (the one for this thread) when they arrive at the museum.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

getbak said:


> No, that's a direct quote from last week's episode (the one for this thread) when they arrive at the museum.


I'm talking about the Sepinwall tweet. That's pretty clearly about the next episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markb said:


> I'm talking about the Sepinwall tweet. That's pretty clearly about the next episode.


And yet it spoils nothing about it...


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And yet it spoils nothing about it...


I don't know how you can say that. It does absolutely give information about what happens in the episode, albeit vague information.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markb said:


> I don't know how you can say that. It does absolutely give information about what happens in the episode, albeit vague information.


OK, tell me one thing that you know happens in the episode after reading that.

That's like saying Star Wars takes place in space. It has "Lovecraft" in the title! Of COURSE it's gonna be gross!


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> I'm enjoying this, though very confused at times
> I found it odd that Letita said to Atticus last week that she was a virgin "it was my first time", but this week told Tree ("Of course I know, remember that time in High School?") - With the "spells" having them see things (i.e. when in the house they Letita was with and Atticus that was not really Atticus), was that really Letita who said it was her first time?


I'll give a decidedly different take on this: it's her first time since she died.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> OK, tell me one thing that you know happens in the episode after reading that.





Spoiler



The tweet was saying the next episode would be much grosser than previous episodes, something I would not have known without reading the tweet.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markb said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The tweet was saying the next episode would be much grosser than previous episodes, something I would not have known without reading the tweet.


So in other words...not a thing.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Spoiler



I cannot express how much I hate spoiler police, right or wrong, it derails conversation and is so often about petty things, such as, for example, this one. But if you're gonna accept the spoiler rules here in this forum without at least being consistent about complaining about them all the time, consider that anything factual (in other words, not speculation) stated about an episode not yet falling into this sites spoilers-allowed rules in a discussion are supposed to be tagged as spoilers. I would think it a fair interpretation that a posting, however lacking in detail, about a future episode by someone involved in the show itself or who has seen the show itself has to be considered a spoiler for that episode, and thus should be tagged as such everywhere in discussions about the show, except in those threads specifically allowed to have such spoilers untagged... even if that comment is intentionally misleading, too.

The problem is when it's so very, very mild like this one, there's a place to argue that it reveals nothing. And that argument goes back and forth, and invites others to do the same, leading to further distraction from the intended topic of the thread. I wish there was a milder way to accomplish what is desired, like ways to start mini-threads on a post that aren't part of the main thread and only show up if you explicitly go to them (the existence of them would be very visible on posts where they happen, perhaps). "Report this post" seems like it's too extreme much of the time, especially not knowing if that brings into play some of the more ridiculous point penalties on this site that can lead to temporary or permanent bans. Not everyone pays attention to private messages, or even has room to receive more of them, but sending a short, polite private message about it seems more appropriate, except then there's no way for others to know someone has done that already, so the poster gets many such PMs or a public discussion just gets started by someone else anyway.

What might work best would be for a way to vote on a post to declare it as having content that should be tagged as a spoiler, and if some level of enough members voting that way on it do so, it automatically tags the entire post as a spoiler for future viewers, and perhaps lets a moderator come through later casually to review such things and modify them as appropriate. But that then leads to dealing with people who repeatedly abuse it to spoiler-tag posts that shouldn't be/don't need to be tagged. So I guess at some point one needs to be able to lose the privilege of voting for spoiler tagging, at least for a time.

And if we are doing all that, can we please offer a flag on everyone's account where they can agree to always reveal spoiler-tagged content? Because I'm sick of the stupid spoiler tag button, and when it appears, you tend to get a bunch in a row, and I would rather see them all than have to push the damn button all the time. I care not a whit about spoilers being provided.



I have chosen to use the SPOILER tag to spoilerize an off-topic rant of sorts, as opposed to a spoiler for upcoming episodes, so skip or read accordingly.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> So in other words...not a thing.


I don't agree. But I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not taking this discussion any further.


----------

