# The Last Man On Earth S1E7/8 - 3/29/15



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Well, for all those who were combining in the last thread about what a ***** Phil is, I'm guessing these episodes didn't help any. 

Friggin' Todd


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yeah, I lasted about five minutes, and finally I said, "Why am I doing this to myself, week after week?"


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

Clicked this thread just to see what folks were saying. Can't stand Phil. Couldn't even bring ourselves to watch last night's episode. 

Bummer. It was a fun premise.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, I lasted about five minutes, and finally I said, "Why am I doing this to myself, week after week?"


In last week's thread, I had salted the earth and was gone, but I found it on another DVR on which I had forgotten to kill the SP. Ok, I'll give it one more try (mainly because it was a really slow TV night).

I made it 12 minutes. Phil was still a *****, maybe more of a dick than ever.

But I tell you what really got me: He's cleaning the poop pool. Seriously, you're the last man on earth (sorta, not really, but it doesn't matter), you have more poop pools than you could ever use in a lifetime... and you clean yours out? Why not move?

The other thing that got me, if I'm the last man on earth (again, sorta the last man), is this how I'm gonna spend my days? Whining, cleaning poop, being a dick? Hell no, I'm gonna be more like Todd, driving fast cars and having a blast.

I made sure to kill the SP on every DVR this time.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm not deleting the SP yet (should we change that to OP now, though I know what Reddit would say about that... ) but I have no idea why not. I have yet to see anything I enjoy about this show, but I'm still interested in where it's going.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I thought the opposite - Phil is still a jerk, but now Carol and Melissa are starting to be jerks too. (Carol with the cow in her room, Melissa with the cynicism towards Phil.) I wonder if eventually their roles will reverse. Phil is still holding on some tiny thread of humanity in himself - I wonder if this will end up being a story of redemption for Phil.

If anyone actually finished the episodes, do you agree?

Regarding future episodes, I found what is possibly a big spoiler:



Spoiler



There is one additional female cast member listed, named Erica. The actress playing her is quite attractive.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

The last Man on Earth is actually Todd.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

teknikel said:


> The last Man on Earth is actually Todd.


Are you contending that Phil is not a man, or that something will happen to Phil that will make the above true?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm still in sorta, because I still like the premise. I look at Phil as sort of a Larry David. He's completely detestable but you want to see how badly it turns out for him week after week. Well I do anyway, sounds like most of you don't. So I'll probably finish the season and see if it moves along from Phil lechery.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I'm still in sorta, because I still like the premise. I look at Phil as sort of a Larry David. He's completely detestable but you want to see how badly it turns out for him week after week. Well I do anyway, sounds like most of you don't. So I'll probably finish the season and see if it moves along from Phil lechery.


Mmmmm, I like this explanation, I think this is why I'm hanging in.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

It feels like it's written by a high school boy. "There's this guy, see, and he's the last man on Earth. And then he discovers there's a really hot babe, and, of course, he wants to have sex with her, but things keep happening to stop him. And the entire series is him trying to have sex with her, and he has to keep changing - because women always want men to change - and he can't have the fun he used to have, because she's so hot, you see!"

I don't feel it's ever going to get any deeper than that. And, unlike the early episodes, there don't seem to be any laughs any more. There's nothing funny in it. It's just sad.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> It feels like it's written by a high school boy. "There's this guy, see, and he's the last man on Earth. And then he discovers there's a really hot babe, and, of course, he wants to have sex with her, but things keep happening to stop him. And the entire series is him trying to have sex with her, and he has to keep changing - because women always want men to change - and he can't have the fun he used to have, because she's so hot, you see!"
> 
> I don't feel it's ever going to get any deeper than that. And, unlike the early episodes, there don't seem to be any laughs any more. There's nothing funny in it. It's just sad.


It's a sitcom and is it SUPPOSED to go any deeper? Heck 2 and a half men have been on for years with good ratings with exactly that type of formula. That said, put yourself in his shoes. He's alone for a year, he meets up with a woman who's not only not very attractive (YMMV), but she's annoying and controlling. But she's the only game in town so he puts up with it. He even "marries" her because that's what she wants. And now someone more attractive and has a sweeter personality comes along, but this "marriage" is restricting him. Exactly what would any of us (males) do differently?

We could argue the funny, but the premise still kind of makes sense to me.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I'm not bothered that he's attracted to her. I'm bothered that he's such a complete and total loser, and so patently obvious and pathetic in his attempts.

He'd be the first guy voted off the island, and he's completely oblivious to that. What's amazing is that the other people put up with him.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Ereth said:


> He'd be the first guy voted off the island, and he's completely oblivious to that. What's amazing is that the other people put up with him.


That's sorta what I was getting at in my comment above (and you said better). If I'm one of the last people on earth, there is NO WAY I'm spending it with him, around him, near him or within 100 miles of him.

Let's go race cars on the freeways!


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I'm still in sorta, because I still like the premise. *I look at Phil as sort of a Larry David*. He's completely detestable but you want to see how badly it turns out for him week after week. Well I do anyway, sounds like most of you don't. So I'll probably finish the season and see if it moves along from Phil lechery.


exactly.



astrohip said:


> The other thing that got me, if I'm the last man on earth (again, sorta the last man), is this how I'm gonna spend my days? Whining, cleaning poop, being a dick? Hell no, I'm gonna be more like Todd, driving fast cars and having a blast.


I don't think anyone on this board would spend their days like Phil is - he's a TV show character.



Ereth said:


> I'm not bothered that he's attracted to her. I'm bothered that he's such a complete and total loser, and so patently obvious and pathetic in his attempts.
> 
> He'd be the first guy voted off the island, and he's completely oblivious to that. What's amazing is that the other people put up with him.


Yep, he's a loser. That's what makes it funny (to me). TV shows have had losers for decades. And they'rd not oblivious to it, that's why JJ knew he had taken the cow - she knows what he's been up to.

There's lots of dumb stuff and some bad writing occasionally, but regardless, the show still makes me laugh several times each episode so I'll continue to watch. Yes, I'm lactose intolerant.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

astrohip said:


> That's sorta what I was getting at in my comment above (and you said better). If I'm one of the last people on earth, there is NO WAY I'm spending it with him, around him, near him or within 100 miles of him.
> 
> Let's go race cars on the freeways!


I'm getting to the point where I'd rather see Melissa kick Phil in the nuts then have any contact with him because he's become such a *****.

BTW, the similarly themed The Last Man is on Amazon Prime and handles this subject a lot better.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I don't really understand why Phil said he's lactose intolerant. Regardless if true or not, how does that help him in any way get in good with any of the others?

It seems like he's pathological.

Unless he somehow thought it would humanize him, like all of Todd's terrible stories and afflictions.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

classicX said:


> I don't really understand why Phil said he's lactose intolerant. Regardless if true or not, how does that help him in any way get in good with any of the others?
> 
> It seems like he's pathological.
> 
> Unless he somehow thought it would humanize him, like all of Todd's terrible stories and afflictions.


He was trying to argue for why they should slaughter the cow and eat some burgers. He was hoping that by claiming to be lactose intolerant, and therefore unable to enjoy the dairy products that would come from the cow, the others would take pity on him and agree to something all four would benefit from (meat) rather than something only three would benefit from (dairy). But his lie backfired and then he was stuck having to not enjoy the dairy.

The thing about the cow that bothered me was that I don't think a cow can go for over a year without being milked and then just start producing milk again. I think the cow would have long since been dead, or it would have lost the ability to produce milk.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Or maybe the cow was being milked and cared for by some unknown party!


I have a feeling this is some kind of Vanilla Sky BS going on in this show.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

[rant]To all the haters who didn't watch the full show episode, please quit coming here to thread crap! UGH!

As few of us understand, this is a silly sitcom about preposterous people in ridiculous situations and we enjoy it. If you don't get it, and proclaim that you don't like it, we've heard you and goodbye from this thread and future threads about this show.

We don't crap in your pool threads of shows that you like and that we do not watch.

Have mercy!! [/rant]


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, he's a loser. That's what makes it funny (to me). TV shows have had losers for decades.


Sure, but usually they have some redeeming qualities. Gilligan screwed everything up, but he TRIED. He was a good person, someone you genuinely liked, even though he was a screw up.

Phil - and remember I started this show thinking Phil was the good character and Carol was the most annoying person left on the planet - has no redeeming qualities. He's a man-child without the first hint of a clue. I don't find his antics funny at all, only pathetic.



> And they'rd not oblivious to it, that's why JJ knew he had taken the cow - she knows what he's been up to.


Exactly. His act has worn thin with the only other people on the planet. Any day now I would expect them to decide that - you know, we'd be better off without Phil, and Tuscon is hot, lets go live someplace else. There are nice houses in other cities, too.

I got laughs out of the first few episodes, but not a single one in the last four. I don't remember anything even approaching a smile. The show has turned into one of those bad "Teenagers in Lust" movies where the cool kids convince the mentally-disabled boy that the hottest girl in school has a crush on him, just so they can laugh when he tries to ask her out and fails.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

getreal said:


> [rant]To all the haters who didn't watch the full show episode, please quit coming here to thread crap! UGH!
> 
> As few of us understand, this is a silly sitcom about preposterous people in ridiculous situations and we enjoy it. If you don't get it, and proclaim that you don't like it, we've heard you and goodbye from this thread and future threads about this show.
> 
> ...


the show is crap 
the "plot" is crap 
the writing is crap 
his character is crap

there is a huge difference between a "silly" sitcom and stupid one 
this one is stupid

you're the last man on earth 
travel, walk, hike, siphon the gas from every car in town and drive to the next town 
go to the library -- read a book on boats and sailing, then drive to the coast, any coast, "steal" a boat and travel the coastline

George Costanza was a funny loser 
Ted Baxter was a funny loser 
this guy's just a loser


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

yeah, we get it you all don't like it 

we are still tuning in, isn't what we had hoped, but we were laughing at the "friggin Todd" lines


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Ereth said:


> Sure, but usually they have some redeeming qualities. Gilligan screwed everything up, but he TRIED. He was a good person, someone you genuinely liked, even though he was a screw up.


Which is why I compared Phil to someone like Larry David (or his alter ego George Costanza). He's not a lovable loser, he's an obnoxious loser. You want to see him screw up and get his comeuppance. That's also been something that's been on TV since characters like Bilko in the 1950s. But, you need to surround him with good characters to play off him. I think one of the problems with this show is that the other characters may not be strong enough to play that role. Carol, is equally obnoxious in a different way and she annoys me almost as much as Phil (she's living in this fantasy world that nothing's changed and they have to live like before everyone died). JJ's character is just blah, with little personality. Perhaps Todd could be the perfect foil, but they've yet to make him that yet. But, I'm hopeful they can get to that once the other two characters are developed more.



> Phil - and remember I started this show thinking Phil was the good character and Carol was the most annoying person left on the planet - has no redeeming qualities. He's a man-child without the first hint of a clue. I don't find his antics funny at all, only pathetic.


I think some of what he does is funny, but funny is subjective of course.



> Exactly. His act has worn thin with the only other people on the planet. Any day now I would expect them to decide that - you know, we'd be better off without Phil, and Tuscon is hot, lets go live someplace else. There are nice houses in other cities, too.
> 
> I got laughs out of the first few episodes, but not a single one in the last four. I don't remember anything even approaching a smile. The show has turned into one of those bad "Teenagers in Lust" movies where the cool kids convince the mentally-disabled boy that the hottest girl in school has a crush on him, just so they can laugh when he tries to ask her out and fails.


Again, I do think, a lot of guys, if put in the same situation, would think the same way. At least toward the women (and yes, guys are really shallow!!). Some of the other stuff is stupid, like a potty pool and living in the same houses).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jamesl said:


> the show is crap
> the "plot" is crap
> the writing is crap
> his character is crap
> ...


you're missing his point completely. he's saying, you don't like it, don't watch, instead of whining about it here.

That said, I'm fine with it myself, it's all part of the discussion.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Again, I do think, a lot of guys, if put in the same situation, would think the same way. At least toward the women (and yes, guys are really shallow!!). Some of the other stuff is stupid, like a potty pool and living in the same houses).


I'm a guy, too, you know. I know how shallow guys can be. Trying to find a way to get Melissa to like him is one thing. Doing it in the most obnoxious way possible is another.

Phil was clearly shallow even before the end of the world. He doesn't have a clue. I'd be interested to know why he survived, but I suspect we never will. The show doesn't care that much about what happened before, and I can live with that.

The problem is that they've totally managed to make me dislike Phil, the titular star of the show. He's a caricature of the worst of stupid people. The kind of person who thinks interjecting "I like that, too!" makes people like him. He's an 8-year old.

I liked it better when he was figuring out how to get along in this new world. Now, his entire existence is devoted to having sex with Melissa. And it's boring.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Which is why I compared Phil to someone like Larry David (or his alter ego George Costanza). He's not a lovable loser, he's an obnoxious loser. You want to see him screw up and get his comeuppance. That's also been something that's been on TV since characters like Bilko in the 1950s. But, you need to surround him with good characters to play off him. I think one of the problems with this show is that the other characters may not be strong enough to play that role. Carol, is equally obnoxious in a different way and she annoys me almost as much as Phil (she's living in this fantasy world that nothing's changed and they have to live like before everyone died). JJ's character is just blah, with little personality. Perhaps Todd could be the perfect foil, but they've yet to make him that yet. But, I'm hopeful they can get to that once the other two characters are developed more.


I think that you've hit upon part of the issue here.
No one else on the show is really able to stand up to Phil and be "the voice of reason" or at least point out to him why his thinking is flawed.
(Melissa might be able to do that down the road but she's not there yet.)

Jerry and Elaine would at least tell George that his thought process was flawed and (usually) why.
The character that David Spade always seems to play also seems to have people that tell why his plan won't work and the humor comes from seeing them go through with it anyways.

Even Ethel would say that Lucy's plan was wacky.

The problem is that if you have a primary character that's totally unlikeable, they either need to be deliciously evil (J.R. Ewing, Frank Underwood) so that you're invested in what happens to and with them or you need to have strong likeable character(s) to offset them and point out what the audience is most likely thinking.

In short, the audience needs to care what happens to the character and they're failing with that in regard to Phil.

When he schemes to get Melissa in bed, he just comes across as doochey and pathetic.

When Phil (finally) couldn't leave Todd out in the middle of the desert, I thought that we might have a glimmer of hope for the Phil character and at least be on the road to becoming a lovable loser.
But then he promptly became all pathetically schemey with the cow and as a result, I find myself caring less and less what happens to him.

The only thing that's keeping me somewhat interested in the show is seeing where they are going with the premise.
But more and more, I'm getting the feeling that this will turn out like the SNL skit or Funny or Die video where they take an interesting idea but in the end, don't know what to do with it.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...
> The thing about the cow that bothered me was that I don't think a cow can go for over a year without being milked and then just start producing milk again. I think the cow would have long since been dead, or it would have lost the ability to produce milk.


I grew up on a ranch, we kept a cow for milk, I had to get up every damn morning to milk the damn thing when I was a teenager.

You are quite correct, a cow begins to suffer even when one milking is missed. And that cow was obviously a well cared-for cow that had come immediately from somebody's dairy, not wandering on the open range for a year. (We had open range cattle too.)

However, I don't think any of this is anything that is going to be brought up in the writers' room. The level of reality seems to be about that of a Saturday Night Live skit. And I'm fine with that; the point of the show is to expose, exaggerate and mock behaviors we all indulge in from time to time.

By the way, did you notice that Melissa said she feared she'd never see another animal? From that we might infer that the virus affected more than just humans, perhaps all mammals like rabies does.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Ereth said:


> Sure, but usually they have some redeeming qualities.


Not all of them. Larry David on Curb didn't have any redeeming qualities and it's probably my favorite comedy ever. Heck, the whole cast of Seinfeld didn't really have any redeeming qualities either.

I just enjoy that he thought bringing home a cow for burgers would make him look good. And that the new guy happens to be a dairy expert. And as he tries to defend his scenario for beef mentions that someone might be lactos intolerant. And since nobody else is, he has to claim he is to stick to his guns. It's just funny wondering what will back fire on him next and how he'll try and get out of it.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Glad to see that, with one exception, the posts in this thread since my last post here have increased the level of discussion to some actual substantive topics! 

We see Phil's inner turmoil when he tries to leave Todd out in the desert, but can't. Also when he tries cleaning the toxic cesspool and breaks down emotionally. We can see when he realizes that his instinctive response tends to be a lie, but then tries to ride it out. So he should not be totally unlikable. His world has been thrown into turmoil (at his own doing) at every turn. That is basically what this comedy is about. 

Take it or leave it.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I'm still in sorta, because I still like the premise. I look at Phil as sort of a Larry David. He's completely detestable but you want to see how badly it turns out for him week after week. Well I do anyway, sounds like most of you don't. So I'll probably finish the season and see if it moves along from Phil lechery.


This is roughly where I am. It has been a long time since I've had such a fraught relationship with a show. I think I fast-forwarded through at least a third of this hour, wondering each time why I was bothering to hit play again at all. Yet I still wanted to.



getreal said:


> We see Phil's inner turmoil when he tries to leave Todd out in the desert, but can't. Also when he tries cleaning the toxic cesspool and breaks down emotionally. We can see when he realizes that his instinctive response tends to be a lie, but then tries to ride it out. So he should not be totally unlikable. His world has been thrown into turmoil (at his own doing) at every turn. That is basically what this comedy is about.


All true. The problem, so far, is not in the premise, it's in the telling. I don't care if Phil is a jerk, unlikeable, or whatever. I've watched all kinds of shows with unlikeable characters at the center -- comedies, too -- with contentment as long as the context around those characters is compelling. This show has a great premise, which is largely what has kept me with it. A lot of creativity has gone into the setting, and the little elements surrounding the story. It has introduced the new characters cleverly. And they are clearly delineated people. And for all that, the entire show, for several episodes now, has come down to: guy mad he can't have sex with the hot girl. That's it!

It's perfectly sensible as an arc. And so they spent the last two episodes on that arc, pushing it really to the breaking point. And those episodes ended with Phil telling Melissa, sincerely, apparently, that he loved her, and with Melissa rejecting him. The love bit didn't totally work, because everything prior to that point had been about Phil being horny, but it was passable because January Jones has played Melissa appealingly, and as more than just a nice body and pretty face.

I had hoped that ending would close off this part of the story. I would even have been fine if it had taken on a different dimension, and been about Phil's unrequited feelings for Melissa for a while. But then the show did what it has done almost every episode so far: pushed the reset button on any growth shown by Phil. So this pair of episodes jettisoned the idea that Phil might have feelings for Melissa, and made it all about his insane jealousy that she was having sex with Todd and not him. On the surface, the hour was about Phil's battle with Todd for primacy in their circle, but in reality it was all about Phil's ongoing hissy that he doesn't get to sleep with Melissa. The humanizing moment when Phil broke down by the poop pool? Sex hissy. His guilt about almost leaving Todd by the side of road? Brought on by sex hissy, and then immediately abandoned at the start of the second half hour.

Long story short, my issue with all of that is not that the show has gone there, its that it won't stop going there. It would have made a funny half-hour, or hour at best, and then it could move on to some other aspect of Phil's bad behavior. Or at least make it more an emotional story, as I mentioned. But we've now had over two hours of nothing more than Phil being mad he can't bang the hot girl. One joke repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

That's the basic problem with the show. And it's why, despite how much I've not liked the last four episodes, I'll stick with it the rest of this season. It's a fixable problem, if only the writers and Will Forte would get their heads out. The show around this problem has a bunch of potential.


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

I like the premise, there is a lot they could do. The desert was good. But I am losing patience. A jerk being a jerk, is not really all that interesting. 

People want a good story.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

There was also the B story about Carol wanting Phil and her to move in together, and the twist and double-twist with the cow winding up upstairs as the catalyst for Carol to share the bed with Phil. Carol and Phil are the two most compelling and obnoxious characters. They seem to be fairly oblivious to social dynamics, yet they are clearly scheming to get their way. It just NEVER works in Phil's favor, yet with persistence Carol always gets her way -- eventually. Melissa and Todd are very small (at this point) incidental characters who each seem to exist in this world just to drive Phil's purely selfish motivations.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> I grew up on a ranch, we kept a cow for milk, I had to get up every damn morning to milk the damn thing when I was a teenager.
> 
> You are quite correct, a cow begins to suffer even when one milking is missed. And that cow was obviously a well cared-for cow that had come immediately from somebody's dairy, not wandering on the open range for a year. (We had open range cattle too.)
> 
> However, I don't think any of this is anything that is going to be brought up in the writers' room.


But that's part of the problem. If Todd knows so much about cows, he would know this stuff. And that would beg the question, where are the other cows and bulls that survived. There would have to be a calf somewhere or someone else milking her. After finding that first cow I'd be out looking for more.

They never seem to talk about their situation. How did each of them manage to survive? What have they been doing for the 2 years? What are the long term plans?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

getreal said:


> There was also the B story about Carol wanting Phil and her to move in together, and the twist and double-twist with the cow winding up upstairs as the catalyst for Carol to share the bed with Phil. Carol and Phil are the two most compelling and obnoxious characters. They seem to be fairly oblivious to social dynamics, yet they are clearly scheming to get their way. It just NEVER works in Phil's favor, yet with persistence Carol always gets her way -- eventually. Melissa and Todd are very small (at this point) incidental characters who each seem to exist in this world just to drive Phil's purely selfish motivations.


Phil doesn't want Carol to move in because (a) she is reminder that he's stuck with her and not Melissa, and (b) if she's there then his chances of having sex with Melissa get even smaller. Every bit of the show is about him being frustrated he can't have sex with Melissa.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

I think I'll check in on the threads here and if there is eventually some turnaround with Phil, I'll watch more.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

getreal said:


> We see Phil's inner turmoil when he tries to leave Todd out in the desert, but can't. Also when he tries cleaning the toxic cesspool and breaks down emotionally. We can see when he realizes that his instinctive response tends to be a lie, but then tries to ride it out. So he should not be totally unlikable. His world has been thrown into turmoil (at his own doing) at every turn. That is basically what this comedy is about.


What?
I'm supposed to be ok with Phil because he's not a murderer?
That's a pretty low bar to clear.

cmonty is right in that in that his breakdown and his whole scheming is him essentially throwing a temper tantrum because he only gets to sleep with the second hottest woman in the world as opposed to the hottest.

It's basically what I expect from an eight grader.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I'm in the "If you don't like it, don't watch it" camp.

If all you can think of is that the cow shouldn't have looked so well-nourished, it could be you just don't understand the show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cmontyburns said:


> Phil doesn't want Carol to move in because (a) she is reminder that he's stuck with her and not Melissa, and (b) if she's there then his chances of having sex with Melissa get even smaller. Every bit of the show is about him being frustrated he can't have sex with Melissa.


Phil doesn't want Carol to move in because he doesn't like her, he can't stand being around her, and he wants his privacy. It has nothing to do with Melissa. He wasn't going to let Carol move in even when she was the only other one there.

Ultimately, he only agreed to marry Carol so he could have sex with her. There was never any intention by Phil to commit to her emotionally or even to share his house with her.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Phil doesn't want Carol to move in because he doesn't like her, he can't stand being around her, and he wants his privacy. It has nothing to do with Melissa. He wasn't going to let Carol move in even when she was the only other one there.


After they got married, they spent the day together doing Phil things, they both had fun, and Phil told her he had really enjoyed it... one second before Melissa hit their car, Phil got a look at her, and he went right back to not liking Carol very much. Were they ever going to be a lovey-dovey couple? Not likely. But the state of things now is very much because Carol is not Melissa.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, for all those who were combining in the last thread about what a ***** Phil is, I'm guessing these episodes didn't help any.
> 
> Friggin' Todd


Again, I "defended" it last week, but it seems like even from the other point of view, he was MUCH less of a jerk this week.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

midas said:


> But that's part of the problem. If Todd knows so much about cows, he would know this stuff. And that would beg the question, where are the other cows and bulls that survived. There would have to be a calf somewhere or someone else milking her. After finding that first cow I'd be out looking for more.


You know that; I know that; if this were an hour show and real science fiction I'd be having real problems with it too. But it's a half-hour comedy and the point of the cow is to expose emotional humor between the protagonists, not point to a hidden dairy conspiracy. If this was a show like "Lost" the significance of the cow would be completely different. But it's not that kind of show, different rules apply.



> They never seem to talk about their situation. How did each of them manage to survive? What have they been doing for the 2 years? What are the long term plans?


Doesn't sound funny to me. Does it sound funny to you? If you want a realistic view of an apocalypse, I think "On the Beach" might be available on Amazon.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

astrohip said:


> But I tell you what really got me: He's cleaning the poop pool. Seriously, you're the last man on earth (sorta, not really, but it doesn't matter), you have more poop pools than you could ever use in a lifetime... and you clean yours out? Why not move?


Umm, because then everyone ELSE would have to move too? (I do think it's reasonable that they all live at least near, though maybe not necessarily next door to each other..)

The chick apparently likes her door-less house..

Though I did actually laugh OUT LOUD at him falling in the pool. Even though it was so obvious, maybe it was his mannerisms.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JYoung said:


> I'm getting to the point where I'd rather see Melissa kick Phil in the nuts then have any contact with him because he's become such a *****.
> 
> BTW, the similarly themed The Last Man is on Amazon Prime and handles this subject a lot better.


Yikes, 5.5 on Amazon!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

mattack said:


> Again, I "defended" it last week, but it seems like even from the other point of view, he was MUCH less of a jerk this week.


You think he was less of a jerk this week? I could see the complaints last week but I didn't share them. This week, I thought he was much worse. Driving Todd to the middle of the desert. Intentionally breaking the sculpture. Lying about being lactose intolerant. Stealing the cow and blaming it on Todd, just so he can take credit for finding it again.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Driving Todd to the middle of the desert. Intentionally breaking the sculpture. Lying about being lactose intolerant. Stealing the cow and blaming it on Todd, just so he can take credit for finding it again.


Any of which I could see Larry David doing (or his alter ego George Costanza) and find funny.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I know this is a weak argument, but the fact that he drove the guy out to the desert but *didn't* leave him is less bad than he previously was.

If I still had the show (it probably has been overwritten), I could probably come up with a few other things.

Again, I still think he's a jerk, but he seemed *less so* this week.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Any of which I could see Larry David doing (or his alter ego George Costanza) and find funny.


I'm not saying those things weren't funny. I'm still liking the show. I just think Phil was much more dooshy this week.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Any of which I could see Larry David doing (or his alter ego George Costanza) and find funny.


Larry David's antics are funny because, at their core, they are mocking commonly accepted social conventions. David's humor is intelligent, and quite often genius. This show's humor, on the other hand, is just plain idiotic. There is nothing insightful about anything Phil says or does. His social ineptitude may have been funny for a few episodes, but now it has become tiresome.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I'd be curious how you complainers would over-analyze the Three Stooges.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

getreal said:


> I'd be curious how you complainers would over-analyze the Three Stooges.


For me, I don't find anything the Three Stooges did to be funny. They are unfunny people. I get slapstick, I just don't care for the same joke 1000 times. I'm not still laughing because the chicken crossed the road to get to the other side, after all.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> You know that; I know that; if this were an hour show and real science fiction I'd be having real problems with it too. But it's a half-hour comedy and the point of the cow is to expose emotional humor between the protagonists, not point to a hidden dairy conspiracy. If this was a show like "Lost" the significance of the cow would be completely different. But it's not that kind of show, different rules apply.
> 
> Doesn't sound funny to me. Does it sound funny to you? If you want a realistic view of an apocalypse, I think "On the Beach" might be available on Amazon.


There's nothing about any of that precludes being funny. Especially at the level of humor we've seen the last 2 weeks. The first episode, which was basically Phil alone, had plenty of funny stuff. Why wouldn't flashbacks showing how the other 3 were doing before they saw the signs and decided to move to Tucson?

The best humor comes from well fleshed out characters. More backstory would lead to stronger character development.

And seriously, you can't see where there would be humor in Phil, being alone, finding a bull and trying to corral it?


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Ereth said:


> Any day now I would expect them to decide that - you know, we'd be better off without Phil, and Tuscon is hot, lets go live someplace else. There are nice houses in other cities, too.


From looking at the upcoming episode titles:



Spoiler



There is one called 'Moved to Tampa' and another called 'Kill Phil: Vol 1' - so it might be that Todd and Melissa get tired of it decide to move away from Phil - and then Carol maybe tries to kill him. That's just speculation though.





Ereth said:


> The kind of person who thinks interjecting "I like that, too!" makes people like him. He's an 8-year old.


I think that's offensive to 8 year-olds. My daughter is 6 and she never does this. 

All of the points being made here about the cow being in perfect health seem to reinforce my idea that this is in the vein of Vanilla Sky. Have we had many scenes where Phil was not present? I can't really think of any, except for maybe when Carol was spinning the tale about the cow ending up in her bedroom.

We almost never see anything happen with the rest of the cast until Phil sees it happening.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

By focusing on details like well-nourished cows you're missing lines like "I'm off to the Wyndham."


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> By focusing on details like well-nourished cows you're missing lines like "I'm off to the Wyndham."


Exactly. Lots of funny lines, IMO.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> I know this is a weak argument, but the fact that he drove the guy out to the desert but *didn't* leave him is less bad than he previously was. If I still had the show (it probably has been overwritten), I could probably come up with a few other things. Again, I still think he's a jerk, but he seemed *less so* this week.


Ah yes. Because he didn't leave him to certain death, he is so much better. It was actually another bad plan by Phil. If he left him somewhere there were resources (like water)....

Phil is douchy and stupid.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> Ah yes. Because he didn't leave him to certain death, he is so much better. It was actually another bad plan by Phil. If he left him somewhere there were resources (like water)....
> 
> Phil is douchy and stupid.


What'll really bake your noodle later on... is he ******y because he's stupid, or is he stupid because he's ******y?

I think it's safe to say that we understand Phil's motivations, but I prefer to look at the show as insight into how people react to Phil's craziness. Carol ignores it, Melissa sees through it, and Todd seems to sugar coat it.

I'm waiting for (spoilerized as it reveals the future happenings on the show):



Spoiler



the new girl to actually confront / address it.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

idk we are still laughing about "friggin Todd", used 3-4 times already since we watched it in text messages.. 

and the back/forth in the truck after dropping Todd by the side of the road had us rolling. stupid? sure. not everyone's cup of tea sure, but i find it comical.

course, i'm likely more like the 6 year olds out there when it comes to humor


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

midas said:


> The best humor comes from well fleshed out characters.


Ugh! :down: Don't quit your day job. Consider not watching this show -- it was apparently not written for your comic sensibilities. I love cartoons, but I don't care for Family Guy or South Park, although they each have their audiences and fans.

Phil taking Todd out "for a ride" was the same approach as someone taking their problem pet for a ride and dropping them off three hours away and leaving them. Simple as that. But they showed us Phil's crisis of conscience and Todd acted as simple and happy as Phil's dog, as if he was unaware of the original intention.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

getreal said:


> Ugh! :down: Don't quit your day job. Consider not watching this show -- it was apparently not written for your comic sensibilities. I love cartoons, but I don't care for Family Guy or South Park, although they each have their audiences and fans.
> 
> Phil taking Todd out "for a ride" was the same approach as someone taking their problem pet for a ride and dropping them off three hours away and leaving them. Simple as that. But they showed us Phil's crisis of conscience and Todd acted as simple and happy as Phil's dog, as if he was unaware of the original intention.


Yes. It's a bad thing for any human to do to an animal. Absolutely horrible thing to do to your "problem pet". That anybody would find it funny actually bothers me.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Ereth said:


> Yes. It's a bad thing for any human to do to an animal. Absolutely horrible thing to do to your "problem pet". That anybody would find it funny actually bothers me.


It bothers you that I found it funny that Phil did his truck back and forth debating whether to leave clueless Todd behind? Really?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

getreal said:


> I'd be curious how you complainers would over-analyze the Three Stooges.


Or Road Runner cartoons.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I keep hoping this show will get better. I should have bailed when Carol came on the show (I simply cannot stand this actress, I always FF through any segment she has on The Daily Show). I'm giving it 2 more episodes because shows seem to change course in the beginning and I'm hoping they will ditch what's not working...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I keep hoping this show will get better. I should have bailed when Carol came on the show (I simply cannot stand this actress, I always FF through any segment she has on The Daily Show). I'm giving it 2 more episodes because shows seem to change course in the beginning and I'm hoping they will ditch what's not working...


I'm pretty sure this is one of the few shows where the season was written before it started filming, and I know that the whole thing was in the can before the first episode aired. So I don't think they're going to make any changes based on what's "not working," because clearly they made the show they wanted to make and they believe it's working fine.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

I thought it was funny that the writers thought Todd could possible clean up the toilet pool with that little, tiny net. They obviously have no experience cleaning septic tanks.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Or Road Runner cartoons.


Not the same. RR cartoons had the same result but they were clever how they got there. And the coyote was being a coyote. Not a *****.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mrdbdigital said:


> I thought it was funny that the writers thought Todd could possible clean up the toilet pool with that little, tiny net. They obviously have no experience cleaning septic tanks.


The idea is that phil is inept as well as a ***** and stupid.

Perfect guy to build a show around.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> The idea is that phil is inept as well as a ***** and stupid.
> 
> Perfect guy to build a show around.


Yet Phil was "ept"  enough to construct the remote-controlled fireworks and pre-recorded loudspeaker for the outdoor bed setting he devised for Melissa which alerted Todd to their location.

Face it, you just love to hate this show. And you're not gonna' miss an episode or TCF thread about it until the show is over. You are actually hooked on Phil and his antics as if you were hooked on smoking cigars. Sure, cigars stink and screw up your tastebuds and make you feel nauseous, but if you stick it out you'll become addicted. Well, my friend, in spite of your complaints, you're addicted. To Phil, I mean.

And Carol.  _<-- (that one was for Anubys)_


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> Not all of them. Larry David on Curb didn't have any redeeming qualities and it's probably my favorite comedy ever. Heck, the whole cast of Seinfeld didn't really have any redeeming qualities either.


I'm going to disagree a bit with this because the Seinfeld quartet at least had affection for each other.
They were often doing favors for each other, i.e. Jerry getting (and in fact stealing) the marble rye for George.

I've only seen a couple of episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm but it seemed to me that Larry's wife Cheryl (played by Cheryl Hines) seemed to be a decent person and the voice of reason compared to Larry.

Those shows also had much more clever writing than what we've seen so far from Forte and company. I have hard time picturing Phil doing anything nice for anyone else unless it furthers his agenda.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

getreal said:


> Yet Phil was "ept"  enough to construct the remote-controlled fireworks and pre-recorded loudspeaker for the outdoor bed setting he devised for Melissa which alerted Todd to their location.


Actually, I raised my eyebrow at that because they had not demonstrated that Phil had anywhere near the acumen to set that all up.

In fact, they had really set up that it was more likely that Phil was inept enough that the fireworks would have blown in his face.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I think the way to read that is that getting to have sex with Melissa was the first thing he cared enough about to actually put forth the effort.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> Or Road Runner cartoons.





TonyD79 said:


> Not the same. RR cartoons had the same result but they were clever how they got there. And the coyote was being a coyote. Not a *****.


I think it applies in the fact that we have no "character development" in Road Runner cartoons. We don't know much about them except for the facts of the current situation - the road runner is running, and the coyote wants to catch and eat him.

Knowing the road runners destination doesn't make the cartoons any more or funny.



getreal said:


> Yet Phil was "ept"  enough to construct the remote-controlled fireworks and pre-recorded loudspeaker for the outdoor bed setting he devised for Melissa which alerted Todd to their location.


Phil is probably very capable when properly motivated, and completely apathetic when he doesn't want to do something.

At least that's what we are to believe, but reality isn't so black and white.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I recognize the actor playing Todd from previous roles on Running Wilde and Enlisted. But I just realized he's also Slippin' Jimmy's accomplice on Better Call Saul.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> Yet Phil was "ept"  enough to construct the remote-controlled fireworks and pre-recorded loudspeaker for the outdoor bed setting he devised for Melissa which alerted Todd to their location. Face it, you just love to hate this show. And you're not gonna' miss an episode or TCF thread about it until the show is over. You are actually hooked on Phil and his antics as if you were hooked on smoking cigars. Sure, cigars stink and screw up your tastebuds and make you feel nauseous, but if you stick it out you'll become addicted. Well, my friend, in spite of your complaints, you're addicted. To Phil, I mean. And Carol.  <-- (that one was for Anubys)


I may stick with it through the season but if it doesn't improve and it gets renewed, I will treat it the same way I did Under the Dome. That is cut it off.

Right now it is throw away TV.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

TonyD79 said:


> I may stick with it through the season but if it doesn't improve and it gets renewed, I will treat it the same way I did Under the Dome. That is cut it off.
> 
> Right now it is throw away TV.


Since all of the episodes are already completed, this season's story arc is what it is. If it improves, it will be because the writers had the improvement already written into the story.

However, if it gets picked up for a second season, they may well purposely improve things based on feedback. It's a catch 22 - if enough people watch the first season for it to be picked up again, it might be a signal to the producers that it's fine the way it is.

The only way to win is: not to play. (i.e. stop watching and stop caring.)


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Not the same. RR cartoons had the same result but they were clever how they got there. And the coyote was being a coyote. Not a *****.


Tell it to the road runner. 

Oh, and did you know that coyotes can actually run faster then a road runner?
And how does a freakin' _coyote _handle mail order? How is he paying Acme Corporation for all those anvils?!?
And how do you explain the part where gravity doesn't apply until the coyote notices that he's run off the cliff? Why can't the Warner brothers make a _*realistic *_cartoon??

(That's what you detractors are sounding like to those of us who have just let go.)


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

pdhenry said:


> Tell it to the road runner.
> 
> Oh, and did you know that coyotes can actually run faster then a road runner?
> And how does a freakin' _coyote _handle mail order? How is he paying Acme Corporation for all those anvils?!?
> ...


Please don't make this another Walking Dead thread...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I don't know what that means but something tells me I don't want to...


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pjenkins said:


> It bothers you that I found it funny that Phil did his truck back and forth debating whether to leave clueless Todd behind? Really?


No. It bothers me that someone would say something like "it's just like what you do with a problem pet, drive them out for 3 hours and leave them". That's cruel, whether you do it to Todd or your dog.

Phil driving back and forth, unable to decide, is a comedy cliche, and might have been funny had it not been executed with the skill of a high school play.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Tell it to the road runner.  Oh, and did you know that coyotes can actually run faster then a road runner? And how does a freakin' coyote handle mail order? How is he paying Acme Corporation for all those anvils?!? And how do you explain the part where gravity doesn't apply until the coyote notices that he's run off the cliff? Why can't the Warner brothers make a realistic cartoon?? (That's what you detractors are sounding like to those of us who have just let go.)


 Uh, cartoon. Partially aimed at children. Show me where this show is surrealistic like a cartoon. Other than stupidity, this show is grounded in reality. I don't see floating dogs or signs being pulled out of pockets or talking bunnies.

Nor is it pure silly like Gilligans Island.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Ereth said:


> No. It bothers me that someone would say something like "it's just like what you do with a problem pet, drive them out for 3 hours and leave them". That's cruel, whether you do it to Todd or your dog.
> 
> Phil driving back and forth, unable to decide, is a comedy cliche, and might have been funny had it not been executed with the skill of a high school play.











Ay carrumba!


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

pdhenry said:


> how do you explain the part where gravity doesn't apply until the coyote notices that he's run off the cliff?


Observation leads to wave function collapse.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I've only seen a couple of episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm but it seemed to me that Larry's wife Cheryl (played by Cheryl Hines) seemed to be a decent person and the voice of reason compared to Larry.


Well, sure there were other "good" characters on Curb, just like there are on this show - it's just that the main character is not. And for the record, Larry's wife divorced him on the show cause he was such a ******.

And yes, this show is nowhere near the class of Curb, I'm just saying it's possible to have a good show even though the main character is a loser (which was the reason many people gave as to why the show was bad). Every show can't be Highway to Heaven.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm pretty sure this is one of the few shows where the season was written before it started filming, and I know that the whole thing was in the can before the first episode aired. So I don't think they're going to make any changes based on what's "not working," because clearly they made the show they wanted to make and they believe it's working fine.


yeah, I suspect it's one and done...


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

midas said:


> ...And seriously, you can't see where there would be humor in Phil, being alone, finding a bull and trying to corral it?


When I was a boy my dad, three ranch hands, four horses and two dogs spent an entire day putting one uncooperative longhorn bull on a truck. You could write either a comedy or a tragedy from that adventure. So I have to agree with your point.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

TonyD79 said:


> Uh, cartoon. Partially aimed at children. Show me where this show is surrealistic like a cartoon. Other than stupidity, this show is grounded in reality. I don't see floating dogs or signs being pulled out of pockets or talking bunnies.
> 
> Nor is it pure silly like Gilligans Island.


It is completely surrealistic, e.g.

* A healthy, freshened cow appears out of nowhere

* Phil can't repair a simple door or plumb water, but he can arrange an electronicly remote fireworks display overnight

* Antagonists appear with perfect timing to thwart his plans

This is a story where the rule of funny overrules the laws of physics.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

...and they've figured out mechanical refrigeration.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

as we all know, milk tastes exactly the same straight out of a cow as the milk you get from the store!

I thought for sure they would gag when they drank the milk the first time!


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Anubys said:


> as we all know, milk tastes exactly the same straight out of a cow as the milk you get from the store!
> 
> I thought for sure they would gag when they drank the milk the first time!


Yeah, I thought they would spit it out too.

Another reason why I think this is all in Phil's head, and these people are actual people in Phil's "real" life, and he's imprinting on them.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

It amazes me how many people hate this show but still apparently are watching it.

I'm in the minority I guess. I think it's funny.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Ereth said:


> No. It bothers me that someone would say something like "it's just like what you do with a problem pet, drive them out for 3 hours and leave them". That's cruel, whether you do it to Todd or your dog.


Well, sure, if that is actually done. Here we are talking about a comedy show so I don't get the "bothers me" part. Unless you just are bothered by someone writing about something that if happened would bother you I guess.



Ereth said:


> Phil driving back and forth, unable to decide, is a comedy cliche, and might have been funny had it not been executed with the skill of a high school play.


It was funny to me, this show is definitely not your cup of tea I see!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pjenkins said:


> Well, sure, if that is actually done. Here we are talking about a comedy show so I don't get the "bothers me" part. Unless you just are bothered by someone writing about something that if happened would bother you I guess.


Perhaps you didn't see the post in this thread that had the sentence that I responded to, that DID say (paraphrasing) "it's just like what you do with an unwanted pet". I can be bothered by things people actually say in this forum, right?

And in the show that we are discussing? That Phil thought taking Todd out about 3 hours and leave him in the desert? That's a disgusting thing to do. It's the kind of thing that eliminates any and all chance of "liking" this character, which changes the tone of the show, since we DID like him in the pilot and first couple of episodes.



> It was funny to me, this show is definitely not your cup of tea I see!


The funny thing is that it wasn't that long ago that I was recommending it to my nephew. It has become distasteful rather rapidly. Had I disliked it from the beginning I wouldn't be in this thread. I'd have abandoned it after the first episode or so and never come back (as I did for, say, "The Odd Couple", which I abandoned after episode 3). This, on the other hand, was appealing to me, until about 4 episodes ago, and the fact that I did enjoy it and then gradually became less enjoyable and then became infuriating is the only reason I'm talking about it.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Ereth said:


> That Phil thought taking Todd out about 3 hours and leave him in the desert? That's a disgusting thing to do. It's the kind of thing that eliminates any and all chance of "liking" this character, which changes the tone of the show, since we DID like him in the pilot and first couple of episodes.


No, I think we're supposed to conclude that Phil is a dick who deserves all of the bad karma he gets.

To beat a dead horse, I didn't "like" Larry David's CYE character either but I liked watching CYE.


----------



## Numb And Number2 (Jan 13, 2009)

Ereth said:


> I can be bothered by things people actually say in this forum, right?


Sure, but sometimes sucking it up is the better part of valor.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> No, I think we're supposed to conclude that Phil is a dick who deserves all of the bad karma he gets.
> 
> To beat a dead horse, I didn't "like" Larry David's CYE character either but I liked watching CYE.


I suppose I should mention that I've never seen a single episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, since it's referenced here so much. I know almost nothing about it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> Well, sure there were other "good" characters on Curb, just like there are on this show - it's just that the main character is not. And for the record, Larry's wife divorced him on the show cause he was such a ******.
> 
> And yes, this show is nowhere near the class of Curb, I'm just saying it's possible to have a good show even though the main character is a loser (which was the reason many people gave as to why the show was bad). Every show can't be Highway to Heaven.


Yes, it's possible to have a good show where the main character is a loser.
As stated earlier in the thread, he can be a lovable loser, deliciously evil, or countered with strong character(s) who voice what the audience is or should be thinking.

But the issues are:
1. That Phil isn't a lovable loser, deliciously evil, or countered with good character(s) who voices what the audience is thinking. He's just become a grade a dooshbag that's unappealing to watch.

2. They haven't countered Phil's dooshiness with strong writing. It's much easier to write (and for a viewer to watch) about a likeable person or even a lovable loser than it is to write an interesting show about a d-bag.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I watched all of episode 7 and part of 8 and gave up. Deleted the show off my DVR.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Ereth said:


> Perhaps you didn't see the post in this thread that had the sentence that I responded to, that DID say (paraphrasing) "it's just like what you do with an unwanted pet". I can be bothered by things people actually say in this forum, right?


You can be anything you'd like 



Ereth said:


> And in the show that we are discussing? That Phil thought taking Todd out about 3 hours and leave him in the desert? That's a disgusting thing to do. It's the kind of thing that eliminates any and all chance of "liking" this character, which changes the tone of the show, since we DID like him in the pilot and first couple of episodes.


I completely disagree, it's a funny bit. That Todd is completely clueless to it all adds to the fun.



Ereth said:


> The funny thing is that it wasn't that long ago that I was recommending it to my nephew. It has become distasteful rather rapidly. Had I disliked it from the beginning I wouldn't be in this thread. I'd have abandoned it after the first episode or so and never come back (as I did for, say, "The Odd Couple", which I abandoned after episode 3). This, on the other hand, was appealing to me, until about 4 episodes ago, and the fact that I did enjoy it and then gradually became less enjoyable and then became infuriating is the only reason I'm talking about it.


Understood, I hate when new shows start off with such promise then devolve into something I don't like. Although, to be fair, "The Odd Couple" was complete and utter dreck since episode 1, scene 1


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> It is completely surrealistic, e.g.
> 
> * A healthy, freshened cow appears out of nowhere
> 
> ...


That is not surrealistic. All of those things could happen in normal reality. The only surrealistic part is that there are no bodies anywhere. Otherwise, it is all within the realm of reason and sloppy writing. (Like there may be someone else out there that took care of the cow....)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I suppose I should mention that I've never seen a single episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, since it's referenced here so much. I know almost nothing about it.


I haven't either because I cannot stand Larry David. He is a *****, too.

The worst segment of the SNL 40 show? Larry David.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Can we agree that not everyone thinks the show is funny, but some of us do, and that we all have different tastes? Seems silly at this point to try and convince someone who doesn't like the show that they should like it and vice versa (and yeah, Welcome to this forum!) Of course most of you have been trying to convince me to like Breaking Bad too


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I finally caught up and when I went to click the thread I saw that there were 100 responses. My first thought was, "people must really like this show." I only made it through page one and see no reason to find old threads. 

I like it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> Can we agree that not everyone thinks the show is funny, but some of us do, and that we all have different tastes? Seems silly at this point to try and convince someone who doesn't like the show that they should like it and vice versa (and yeah, Welcome to this forum!) Of course most of you have been trying to convince me to like Breaking Bad too


What you don't get is you don't actually think it's funny. We're just trying to help you understand your mistake, and realize that you really don't find it funny at all.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pjenkins said:


> I completely disagree, it's a funny bit. That Todd is completely clueless to it all adds to the fun.


I think it's a funny bit without the overacting. The screwed up face, the whole schtick that Phil was doing took away from the funny. He didn't play it in any way that was relatable.

He should be having a crisis of conscience. Instead, he's doing a bit. And it's obvious he's doing a bit. It's no more believable than your kid playing hide and seek behind the curtains and you pretending you don't see him there. It's cute on a kid. It's sad and pathetic on a grown man.

But you are right. It's entirely possible this is funny to the same people that thought "The Hangover" was funny. And that set of people doesn't include me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Can we agree that not everyone thinks the show is funny, but some of us do, and that we all have different tastes? Seems silly at this point to try and convince someone who doesn't like the show that they should like it and vice versa (and yeah, Welcome to this forum!) Of course most of you have been trying to convince me to like Breaking Bad too


I like it enough to watch it for now. But phil's dooshery is getting hard to put up with. Growth or some warmth from him would make it so much better.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Ereth said:


> But you are right. It's entirely possible this is funny to the same people that thought "The Hangover" was funny. And that set of people doesn't include me.


What's your opinion of Hot Tub Time Machine?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> I like it enough to watch it for now. But phil's dooshery is getting hard to put up with. Growth or some warmth from him would make it so much better.


I'm in the same spot, I'm not warming to Phil even though I'm enjoying the other characters, you can be a not so nice person and I can still enjoy watching the show, but there are limits.

Heck I still haven't forgiven HIMYM for the horrendous Patrice storyline even after they explained it all later in a flashback.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Actually, I raised my eyebrow at that because they had not demonstrated that Phil had anywhere near the acumen to set that all up.
> 
> In fact, they had really set up that it was more likely that Phil was inept enough that the fireworks would have blown in his face.


Actually they have. Remember that Phil rigged an irrigation system to water Carol's tomatoes.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

verdugan said:


> Actually they have. Remember that Phil rigged an irrigation system to water Carol's tomatoes.


They showed him rigging it up badly and getting sprayed with water.
He didn't even bother to get proper tools and parts.
It's probably still leaking a lot of water.

How is that showing the necessary acumen to set up that fireworks display?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> What's your opinion of Hot Tub Time Machine?


I vaguely remember it as being mildly amusing. Not something to seek out, but not so totally dumb as to be something to actively avoid. But I don't remember it at all, I'm only remembering not being totally frustrated by it.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

verdugan said:


> Actually they have. Remember that Phil rigged an irrigation system to water Carol's tomatoes.


Yeah, and at the rate his half assed plumbing is leaking water, that tank will be empty real soon.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

JYoung said:


> They showed him rigging it up badly and getting sprayed with water.
> He didn't even bother to get proper tools and parts.
> It's probably still leaking a lot of water.
> 
> How is that showing the necessary acumen to set up that fireworks display?


Maybe that was Phil's job. He had to do something for a living. I could see him being a the guy that did pyrotechnics for bands and such.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Note to the haters (of this show): try smoking a doobie before watching the next episode.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

loubob57 said:


> It amazes me how many people hate this show but still apparently are watching it.


No, I quit watching, but still read the threads. Cheap thrills!



getreal said:


> Note to the haters (of this show): try smoking a doobie before watching the next episode.


I did try. Didn't help.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JYoung said:


> They showed him rigging it up badly and getting sprayed with water. He didn't even bother to get proper tools and parts. It's probably still leaking a lot of water.
> 
> How is that showing the necessary acumen to set up that fireworks display?


We saw him trying to duct tape a hose to a much larger spigot on the water tank and that clearly wasn't working. But later we saw that he did get water to the plants and he apparently did a good job with it. The way I read that scene is that he'll only put in a half-assed effort and if that works, then great. But if half-assed doesn't solve the problem, and he's properly motivated, then he can apply himself and actually do things well.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

midas said:


> Maybe that was Phil's job. He had to do something for a living. I could see him being a the guy that did pyrotechnics for bands and such.


If I'm not mistaken, he told Carol in episode 2 that he was a temp.
I'm thinking he meant office temp.



DevdogAZ said:


> We saw him trying to duct tape a hose to a much larger spigot on the water tank and that clearly wasn't working. But later we saw that he did get water to the plants and he apparently did a good job with it. The way I read that scene is that he'll only put in a half-assed effort and if that works, then great. But if half-assed doesn't solve the problem, and he's properly motivated, then he can apply himself and actually do things well.


I don't think we were given enough to assume that he did a good job of getting the water there.

He's getting enough water there for Carol to use but I'm willing to bet there's plenty of water leaking along the way.
(Although I could see Todd correcting all of that.)

Fixing Carol's door would have been simpler and he couldn't even do that right.
(Admittedly, he wasn't motivated either. But it does show Phil's dooshery.)


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

JYoung said:


> He's getting enough water there for Carol to use but I'm willing to bet there's plenty of water leaking along the way.
> (Although I could see Todd correcting all of that.)


[Phil's voice]
Friggin Todd
[/Phil's voice]


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It's only 30 minutes per week to watch and about an hour of entertainment arguing about how bad it is in the thread...so I'll keep watching.

Let's stop comparing him to Larry David, though. LD is a fricken' genius.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

verdugan said:


> [Phil's voice]
> Friggin Todd
> [/Phil's voice]


:up:


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> Note to the haters (of this show): try smoking a doobie before watching the next episode.


Ah, yes. The judgement of great comedy. It's funny if you are high. 😄


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> Let's stop comparing him to Larry David, though. LD is a fricken' genius.


Fricken' Larry.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I'd say I'm one of the haters. I still watch because the premise has a a lot of promise but I'm disappointed at the execution (but I still hope it will improve) and I really don't like the 2 leads (Phil and Carol) as actors.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

It seems as though Will Forte has found the perfect solution to playing a guy frustrated he can't have sex with January Jones: he and January Jones are now dating.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

cmontyburns said:


> It seems as though Will Forte has found the perfect solution to playing a guy frustrated he can't have sex with January Jones: he and January Jones are now dating.


Lucky guy, but it won't last. She's too far out of his league. You can't jump more than two points.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

classicX said:


> All of the points being made here about the cow being in perfect health seem to reinforce my idea that this is in the vein of Vanilla Sky. Have we had many scenes where Phil was not present? I can't really think of any, except for maybe when Carol was spinning the tale about the cow ending up in her bedroom.
> 
> We almost never see anything happen with the rest of the cast until Phil sees it happening.


Before we saw Todd's face for the first time, there were a few scenes of Todd driving his car toward Tuscon.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

DLiquid said:


> Before we saw Todd's face for the first time, there were a few scenes of Todd driving his car toward Tuscon.


That's why I said "almost." 

And I think that was only done for effect - this random guy was driving around and only through Phil's attempt to impress Melissa, he lost almost any chance he has of being with her.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> It seems as though Will Forte has found the perfect solution to playing a guy frustrated he can't have sex with January Jones: he and January Jones are now dating.


Hey, I have an idea for a new TV show: it will star myself and _insert list of names of single actresses here_. I figure the odds are pretty good that I'll end up dating at least one of them.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

classicX said:


> Are you contending that Phil is not a man, or that something will happen to Phil that will make the above true?


That Phil is not a "real" man. Especially to the women. Todd is real and genuine. Phil is not.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

cmontyburns said:


> It seems as though Will Forte has found the perfect solution to playing a guy frustrated he can't have sex with January Jones: he and January Jones are now dating.


So, is this show autobiographical?

Forte was trying to have sex with January Jones and Mel Rodriguez kept getting in the way?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

JYoung said:


> So, is this show autobiographical?
> 
> Forte was trying to have sex with January Jones and Mel Rodriguez kept getting in the way?


Not so easy trying to write something funny, is it?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

classicX said:


> That's why I said "almost."
> 
> And I think that was only done for effect - this random guy was driving around and only through Phil's attempt to impress Melissa, he lost almost any chance he has of being with her.


We've also seen Carol by herself, for example in the hobby store following their first attempt at a wedding.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> It seems as though Will Forte has found the perfect solution to playing a guy frustrated he can't have sex with January Jones: he and January Jones are now dating.


OK, she's only around 8 years younger than he is.. I was thinking they were 20-ish years apart.. Still, good going Will! (I've never seen Mad Men, btw.. Will binge it some eon if it shows up on amazon prime or I go back to netflix or something..)


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Segway on that, it's hard to watch January Jones and see her differently after watching her in Mad Men...... For me it throws off the character in this show, Betty is always there!!!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fahtrim said:


> Segway on that, it's hard to watch January Jones and see her differently after watching her in Mad Men...... For me it throws off the character in this show, Betty is always there!!!


Agreed. Between Betty Draper and her awful performance as host on SNL, it's hard for me to see anything appealing about her anymore. But I've been warming up to the Melissa character.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I did not expect this read to be so much hating on the show! I laugh out loud a few times per episode. Phil is totally unlikable, and it's fun watching him squirm and try to turn things his way and fall on his face (sometimes literally, into a poop pool). I do think there has been some evolution, a few episodes were about trying to sleep with Melissa, now it's about how Todd has usurped his role in the community (not just as a sexual partner).



Ereth said:


> It's entirely possible this is funny to the same people that thought "The Hangover" was funny.


I LOVE The Hangover.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ARGH, I guess because it was 2 together, Tivo still thought it was new?


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

mattack said:


> ARGH, I guess because it was 2 together, Tivo still thought it was new?


Tricked, you were, by the power of the force!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mattack said:


> ARGH, I guess because it was 2 together, Tivo still thought it was new?


DirecTV had them both as reruns. Were they both reruns?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

JYoung said:


> Yes, it's possible to have a good show where the main character is a loser.
> As stated earlier in the thread, he can be a lovable loser, deliciously evil, or countered with strong character(s) who voice what the audience is or should be thinking.
> 
> But the issues are:
> ...


I know they're not comedies but you can have great evil characters if you have great writing. Boyd Crowder is a murderer, bank robber, drug dealer and about 100 other criminal activities but you find yourself fascinated by him and even rooting for him. Elizabeth Jennings in The Americans can casually murder an innocent old woman (and many others) and be an anti-American spy but we're still fascinated by her character.

The conceit is interesting enough to keep some of us watching for now but the writing on Last Man just isn't cutting it. Someone else pointed out that the only theme of the show has been Phil's inability to conjugate with Melissa, over and over again. You can stretch that out with good writing. Ted chasing Diane on Cheers, David chasing Maddie on Moonlighting and probably 100 other tv series. Those made us care and had the good writing skills to include *other* plot points rather than just the simpleton question of "will they or won't they".


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

loubob57 said:


> It amazes me how many people hate this show but still apparently are watching it.
> 
> I'm in the minority I guess. I think it's funny.


Maybe it's for the same reason that drivers slow down on the freeway to look more closely at a horrible accident scene.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> DirecTV had them both as reruns. Were they both reruns?


Yes.

TiVo was fooled because this one hour block had never aired before, even though it was made up of two half-hour blocks which had both aired before.

I blame Fox for putting it in the guide data as one show when it was really two shows. BIH, FOX!


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

loubob57 said:


> It amazes me how many people hate this show but still apparently are watching it.
> 
> I'm in the minority I guess. I think it's funny.


I'm with ya - still watching and still laughing (and sometimes cringing).



Bob Coxner said:


> Maybe it's for the same reason that drivers slow down on the freeway to look more closely at a horrible accident scene.


[pet peeeve]

Yes, and every single one of those drivers should get a ticket for impeding traffic.

[/pet peeve]


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

I see the haters' constant whining and negative analysis of this show as akin to FOXnews & the Republican party's analysis of virtually anything Obama says or does. The big difference is that they don't have to watch this TV show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> I see the haters' constant whining and negative analysis of this show as akin to FOXnews & the Republican party's analysis of virtually anything Obama says or does. The big difference is that they don't have to watch this TV show.


Huh? You are saying that the people who are analyzing/criticizing the show are pushing an agenda that seeks to have the show fail for some sort of personal gain?

Can't be that people have an honest opinion. Nope. Gotta be something behind it.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Huh? You are saying that the people who are analyzing/criticizing the show are pushing an agenda that seeks to have the show fail for some sort of personal gain?
> 
> Can't be that people have an honest opinion. Nope. Gotta be something behind it.


Nope. No personal gain involved. Just negative spin. That's it. The rest of us who enjoy (and cringe) at the comedy see it for what it is meant to be: a silly comedy. I'm not trying to insult anybody. The FOX news comparison is that they seem to spin everything Barack or Michelle (or the girls) say or do into something negative.

Enjoy hating the show, 'cause I know you'll continue to choose to tune in ... although you do not have to tune in.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Bob Coxner said:


> I know they're not comedies but you can have great evil characters if you have great writing. Boyd Crowder is a murderer, bank robber, drug dealer and about 100 other criminal activities but you find yourself fascinated by him and even rooting for him. Elizabeth Jennings in The Americans can casually murder an innocent old woman (and many others) and be an anti-American spy but we're still fascinated by her character.


Yes, that's what I meant by "deliciously evil". Up thread, I cited J.R. Ewing and Frank Underwood as examples.



getreal said:


> I see the haters' constant whining and negative analysis of this show as akin to FOXnews & the Republican party's analysis of virtually anything Obama says or does. The big difference is that they don't have to watch this TV show.


The reason "the haters" are still watching the show after these few outings is because they were interested in the concept and wanted to see where Forte and company are taking it.

The issue is that the Phil character started off as sympathetic (I mean he was going out of his mind from loneliness and tried to commit suicide in the first episode), now has become a gigantic ***** and so far, many have felt that the writing hasn't been strong enough to offset Phil's dooshiness.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> Nope. No personal gain involved. Just negative spin. That's it. The rest of us who enjoy (and cringe) at the comedy see it for what it is meant to be: a silly comedy. I'm not trying to insult anybody. The FOX news comparison is that they seem to spin everything Barack or Michelle (or the girls) say or do into something negative.
> 
> Enjoy hating the show, 'cause I know you'll continue to choose to tune in ... although you do not have to tune in.


Funny. I see your posts as being more along the lines of Fox News. An attack on people without any basis in fact.

You and I have a different definition of the word silly. This comedy is trying to NOT be silly. It thinks it is grown up.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Sorry TonyD79, but nothing I said should be seen as an "attack". I was simply defending the show and making an observation about your (and two or three others) negative commentary. With all due respect, can we agree to disagree? 

See, for me, when I like a concept for a new show, but am disappointed with the writing and/or acting, I give up on the show and the threads about that show (e.g., Two Broke Girls) and leave the threads to the people who enjoy it. No fuss, no muss. And no hard feelings.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

To be fair, although they've show eight episodes, there's only been four airings so people could still be in the "Trying it out" phase.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Awfully defensive about the show. Only positive discussion allowed on an Internet forum since when?

It's not like we're saying, "I've never seen it but it's crap."

we're saying "We watched it, and think it's crap, and here's why."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JYoung said:


> To be fair, although they've show eight episodes, there's only been four airings so people could still be in the "Trying it out" phase.


Five airings...1/2, 3, 4, 5/6, and 7/8.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Five airings...1/2, 3, 4, 5/6, and 7/8.


Oops, I guess the repeat showing that combined 3 & 4 confused me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

getreal said:


> Sorry TonyD79, but nothing I said should be seen as an "attack". I was simply defending the show and making an observation about your (and two or three others) negative commentary. With all due respect, can we agree to disagree? See, for me, when I like a concept for a new show, but am disappointed with the writing and/or acting, I give up on the show and the threads about that show (e.g., Two Broke Girls) and leave the threads to the people who enjoy it. No fuss, no muss. And no hard feelings.


Peace.

I haven't given up on the show quite yet even though I am disappointed in aspects of it. Not yet. If it doesn't improve on those aspects, I will give up. However, it is only a few minutes a week and not completely horrible. If I gave up that quickly, I would not have stuck with early 30
Rock or Parks and Recreation, both shows that turned out to be great despite early disappointment.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> Awfully defensive about the show. Only positive discussion allowed on an Internet forum since when?
> 
> It's not like we're saying, "I've never seen it but it's crap."
> 
> we're saying "We watched it, and think it's crap, and here's why."


It's like you're saying "We watch it _every week_ and it's crap."


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> It's like you're saying "We watch it _every week_ and it's crap."


It wasn't crap every week. I didn't complain about it until 2 weeks ago. It's just that by running double episodes they've effectively given us 4 episodes to complain about with it getting worse (from my perspective) in each one. It's the downward trend that bothered me. I liked it. It changed directions and I didn't like it any more.

It's like when my mother brought home the same peanut butter she'd always bought, only now it tasted different and I didn't like it any more. It's the change that has evoked such strong feelings in us.

Which, I suppose, indicates that we cared, and in that regard, the show succeeded.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Renewed for a second season

Strange that this show got a pre-UpFronts renewal while _New Girl_ and _The Mindy Project_ didn't.

I think this is the current list of known Fox renewals:
_The Simpsons
Family Guy
Bob's Burgers
Masterchef Junior
Brooklyn Nine-Nine
The Last Man on Earth
Empire
Gotham
Sleepy Hollow_

_Glee_ has ended production; _Red Band Society_ will not be renewed.


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> Strange that this show got a pre-UpFronts renewal while _New Girl_ and _The Mindy Project_ didn't.


"New Girl" was renewed last week.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> It's like you're saying "We watch it _every week_ and it's crap."


I watch a lot of tv that I think is crap in order to spend time with people whose company is more important to me than what is on tv.

That said...also what ereth wrote. I didn't dislike it immediately...the double episodes exacerbated to process, and since I'm watching it anyway, I'm discussing it and holding a slim hope that it will improve


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

MonsterJoe said:


> That said...also what ereth wrote. I didn't dislike it immediately...the double episodes exacerbated to process, and since I'm watching it anyway, I'm discussing it and holding a slim hope that it will improve


I was in the same boat. A short while into this episode, I asked myself, "Why am I still watching this?" And stopped.

It's not that I hate the show. It's that the show hates me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Why does anyone think that those criticizing the Phil character or asking where the dead bodies are is automatically saying the whole show is crap. 

Phil as a main character makes it harder to stick with the show long term. But short term, there is still hope for the character.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Why does anyone think that those criticizing the Phil character or asking where the dead bodies are is automatically saying the whole show is crap.


If you're talking about my posts, I'm not the one who first used the word "crap."


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It was probably me...I've said it a few times


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> If you're talking about my posts, I'm not the one who first used the word "crap."


I was speaking generally and not specifically. And about the overall posts that misrepresent what some of us think of the show.

Tired of it. Talk about the show itself.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

From an article on ComicBookResources, the plan was always to make Phil sympathetic, turn him dark, and then see if they can redeem him.



> "It's been interesting to see the response when this guy that you make so sympathetic in the beginning kind of turns and you see the other sides of the personality," Forte said. "Most people have many different sides to them, and in a heightened situation like this, who knows what would happen. The trickiest thing is - you never know when you lose somebody. Can they gain sympathy for Phil again? Without telling you where the story goes, we certainly don't want you to hate this person with all your guts, and we hope to win him back at some point, but you just have no idea where that switch is, the point of no return."





> Or, more simply, "That's the show: This guy's the worst guy, and I still am rooting for him."


http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...brace-the-dark-side-of-the-last-man-on-earth/

So, they've accomplished the first turn. It remains to be seen if they can pull it back.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Hmm, they don't say how many episodes will be in the 2nd season. I've been defending it, but even I kind of wonder how long it can go and still be good (yes, I consider it good now, no snarky comments).

This show always seemed to me like it could be a sitcom version of Survivors,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072572/combined, which I know I watched a bunch of, but after TOO many people were added to it, I lost interest..


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Spoiler



A major step in the right direction! the divorce was long overdue. I'm somewhat optimistic now.



Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I don't know why I thought it was a season-long thread.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Wrong weeks' thread Anubys? Didn't that happen this past week? This is an older thread.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

[Pace Picante man]Get a rope.[/Pace Picante man]


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry. Todd will move it to the correct thread.

Freakin' Todd.


----------

