Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Longmire "8 Seconds" (spoilers)
247 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 18, 2012, 6:20:02 PM7/18/12
to
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
thwarted by that horrid ending.
This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
We just got a little.
Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life. The wife is a gallery
owner who was off having an affair, which turns out to be with Branch's
father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
and in the end, it's mere plot device.
The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
confirm her suspicions.
In the best of families, there's conflict between father and son. In the
worst situation, where parents whose marriage has disintegrated force their
children to take sides, this can only destroy the lives of the children
who are put into a situation that's not their fault, but their parents'
problem.
She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
the son saw what was going on.
At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
her son or her husband.
Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
thwarted by that horrid ending.
This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
We just got a little.
Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life. The wife is a gallery
owner who was off having an affair, which turns out to be with Branch's
father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
and in the end, it's mere plot device.
The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
confirm her suspicions.
In the best of families, there's conflict between father and son. In the
worst situation, where parents whose marriage has disintegrated force their
children to take sides, this can only destroy the lives of the children
who are put into a situation that's not their fault, but their parents'
problem.
She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
the son saw what was going on.
At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
her son or her husband.
Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
David Barnett
Jul 18, 2012, 7:28:48 PM7/18/12
to
In article <ju7cqi$ni6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
a...@chinet.com says...
A good summary.
I've already commented on the title in another post.
--
David Barnett
a...@chinet.com says...
I've already commented on the title in another post.
--
David Barnett
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 18, 2012, 7:32:29 PM7/18/12
to
David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>A good summary.
>I've already commented on the title in another post.
Tell me what thread or Message-ID. I rarely read What Did You Watch? threads.
>I've already commented on the title in another post.
Ian J. Ball
Jul 19, 2012, 10:02:50 AM7/19/12
to
In article <ju7cqi$ni6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
way through.
--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
> to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
> thwarted by that horrid ending.
I dunno what your problem was - I thought this episode worked all the
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
> to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
> thwarted by that horrid ending.
way through.
--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Jul 19, 2012, 10:55:51 AM7/19/12
to
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
> thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
> This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
> a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
> thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
> This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
> episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
> rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>
> The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
> We just got a little.
The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have been.
> rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>
> The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
> We just got a little.
> Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
> the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
> episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
> bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
I disagree, we know that he showed very little brain damage (since he wasn't unconscious due to the beating). He was messed up, but istr that the doctor said he would be alright (no concussion, no brain bleeding, no brain damage).
The wife is a gallery
> father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
>
> A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>
> Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
> common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
> his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
Lost in a fire.
> his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
> Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
> theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
> savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
>
> Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
> it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
> for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
> the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
> Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
> it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
> for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
> tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
> wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
> close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
> truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
The painting was taken to make the beating appear to be the result of a botched home invasion. Yes, Longmire did say that the beating seemed to be extreme for "just a theft gone wrong", but that's why it went missing.
> truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
> At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>
> The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
> Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
> police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
> The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
> Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
> and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>
> The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>
> She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
> who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
> and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
It's been shown, through several episodes, that this is a small town county. Any PI hired would most likely be known to everyone in town, and the sheriff's office would probably be aware of "investigations".
> who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
> and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
In her defense (and I do not agree with her reasoning), she wanted her son to see if daddy was cheating on mommy with whatserface (Stacy Haiduk). Jealous people do not make good decisions, emotions are not rational. Why she'd send her 17/18 yr old son to do that is nonsensical, but she could not follow him. She did not think she was putting her son (or husband) in any mortal danger.
> At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
> in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
> her son or her husband.
...and she knew it wasn't her husband, based on what the son said that night (after he got home), and she didn't believe that "her baby" (don't most mom's consider their kids their babies, for their entire lives) could possibly have done *that* to another human being.
> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
> her son or her husband.
> Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
> with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
> The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
> to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
> the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
> The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
Which is actually pretty common among closeted people (from what I've seen with some friends).
> to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
> the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
> The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
> In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
> yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
> seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
> continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
> like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
> a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
> didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
> continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
> like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
> a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
> duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
> to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
> sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
> can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
You don't know that. I mean, with *that* father, would you be comfortable telling a "father figure" that you respect (or God forbid, *like*) him?
> Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
> The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
> in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
> race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
> can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
I did not get the impression that she was "afraid" of her father. I got the sense that she is worried about hurting him. She thinks that he hates or really dislikes Branch (for whatever reason, though she seems to think it's the election).
> can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints him. Sorta like a parent.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2012, 12:49:49 PM7/19/12
to
Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>>This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
>>a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>>episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>>rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
Could I ask why you're changing the ASCII apostrophe (ambiguous character)
>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>>This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
>>a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>>episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>>rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
to an unambiguous apostrophe, which has a different character code? In
this case, yeah, I meant apostrophe and not single open or close quote or
acute accent. Because the ASCII character is ambiguous, there must never
be an automated process for substituting unambiguous characters for it.
Do you have some sort of rich text feature turned on, or is this some
all new and even more horrifying feature of Google Groups which should be
screaming to one and all that it must not be used as an interface to Usenet?
It's still falsely claiming to be quoted-printable encoding, but the
apostrophe was rended with an ampersand numeric code instead of an equal
sign numeric code. Ampersand started numeric code sequences in HTML;
equal sign starts them in quoted-printable encoding.
Google's Usenet interface is getting worse and worse with each iteration.
>>The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
>>We just got a little.
>The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of
>inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have
>been.
A murder set in the world of rodeo is appropriate for Longmire. A murder
that could have been set anywhere is less interesting.
>>Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
>>the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
>>episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
>>bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
>I disagree, we know that he showed very little brain damage (since he
>wasn't unconscious due to the beating). He was messed up, but istr that
>the doctor said he would be alright (no concussion, no brain bleeding,
>no brain damage).
if the patient will live.
>>A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>>Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>>common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>>his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
>Lost in a fire.
>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the
>original.
>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>The painting was taken to make the beating appear to be the result of a
>botched home invasion. Yes, Longmire did say that the beating seemed to
>be extreme for "just a theft gone wrong", but that's why it went
>missing.
painting in a random vehicle in Henry's parking lot didn't help to make it
appear that the attempted murder was secondary to art burglary either,
nor did the fact that the thief didn't steal something known to be valuable.
In fact, the only burglar who could have possibly known the painting was
genuine would have been one hired by the fence that she bought it from
in the first place, and if that had happened, then the perpetrator would
have been known. The writing of this aspect of the story was wholly
indefensible.
>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in
>the episode
>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>>She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
>>who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>>and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>It's been shown, through several episodes, that this is a small town
>county. Any PI hired would most likely be known to everyone in town,
>and the sheriff's office would probably be aware of "investigations".
to stay married. If you want a divorce, you hire an attorney, who
in turn hires the P.I. You hire them from a place, still in your state,
in which you and your husband aren't known, as you don't want to tip
the cheater off early.
It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
hotel. The two men had sex at one of their homes. I think she'd have had
no trouble establishing grounds for divorce.
>In her defense (and I do not agree with her reasoning), she wanted her
>son to see if daddy was cheating on mommy with whatserface (Stacy
>Haiduk). Jealous people do not make good decisions, emotions are not
>rational. Why she'd send her 17/18 yr old son to do that is
>nonsensical, but she could not follow him. She did not think she was
>putting her son (or husband) in any mortal danger.
danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
impossible to explain away.
>> At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't
>put her son
>> in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't
>understand that her
>> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>> her son or her husband.
>...and she knew it wasn't her husband, based on what the son said that
>night (after he got home), and she didn't believe that "her baby" (don't
>most mom's consider their kids their babies, for their entire lives)
>could possibly have done *that* to another human being.
what he did. Yet she still couldn't believe he'd commit murder on
her behalf. What is this, Becket?
>>Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
>>with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
>>The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>>to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
>>the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>>The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
>Which is actually pretty common among closeted people (from what I've
>seen with some friends).
to the loss of his son and lover, but yeah, we're supposed to be more
shocked by the homosexuality. Sorry, the comic moment annoyed me.
>>In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>>yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>>own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>>seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
>>continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>>like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
>>a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>You don't know that. I mean, with *that* father, would you be
>comfortable telling a "father figure" that you respect (or God forbid,
>*like*) him?
written at any point in time.
Despite Longmire's failings as a sheriff (most of which we didn't see),
Branch isn't qualified as long as he's terrified of his own father. Right
now, he's going to lose The Chin, his lover, who appears to be on the verge
of giving him an ultimatum.
If Branch is going to grow up, he better do it pretty damn quick.
>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>I did not get the impression that she was "afraid" of her father. I got
>the sense that she is worried about hurting him. She thinks that he
>hates or really dislikes Branch (for whatever reason, though she seems
>to think it's the election).
hurting her father, but disappointing him by taking a lesser man as
her lover.
Longmire could rightly see Branch as a child, which is definitely is,
without hating him. That, in and of itself, makes him not good enough
for The Chin.
I'm going to give Longmire the benefit of a doubt that whatever his conflict
with Branch's father is, it doesn't carry over to Branch. Evidence of that
is he never fired Branch. Maybe he even sees something in him, far, far,
far into the future.
>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>him. Sorta like a parent.
suzeeq
Jul 19, 2012, 1:54:51 PM7/19/12
to
to shake up whoever did it.
David Barnett
Jul 19, 2012, 9:53:42 PM7/19/12
to
In article <ju7h2d$u28$3...@news.albasani.net>,
a...@chinet.com says...
Instead I'll give you my one line comment:
*I did not realize that the title referred to the sexual
act before watching the episode*.
--
David Barnett
a...@chinet.com says...
>
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >A good summary.
> >I've already commented on the title in another post.
>
> Tell me what thread or Message-ID. I rarely read What Did You Watch? threads.
I don't think I'm capable of doing that.
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >A good summary.
> >I've already commented on the title in another post.
>
> Tell me what thread or Message-ID. I rarely read What Did You Watch? threads.
Instead I'll give you my one line comment:
*I did not realize that the title referred to the sexual
act before watching the episode*.
--
David Barnett
Hunter
Jul 20, 2012, 4:32:06 AM7/20/12
to
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:20:02 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>
>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
>This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
>a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>
>The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
>We just got a little.
-----
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>
>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
>This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
>a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>
>The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
>We just got a little.
You got more than eight seconds of it, plus a pair of cattle mating
LOL!
>
>Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
>the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
>episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
>bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life. The wife is a gallery
>owner who was off having an affair, which turns out to be with Branch's
>father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
-----
>Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
>the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
>episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
>bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life. The wife is a gallery
>owner who was off having an affair, which turns out to be with Branch's
>father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
According to the doctor, it wasn't any of the head injuries that put
his life in jeopardy since there was no sign of concussion but the
"hot shot" stun device that caused a heart spasm. Branch at the end
said to his father that Walt saved Chris life and of course when Henry
obliged and stunned Walt with the cattle prod stun gun he recovered so
it is easy conclude that Chris recovered.
>
>A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
------
>A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
Destroyed in a fire in the 1940s was the story and Henry wouldn't have
something so historically inaccurate hanging in his bar. Here it is
and part of the reason it was in every bar in the west is because it
was a Budweiser ad:
http://tinyurl.com/7y4rrxv
A history of the poster, which was created in 1884, is here. Henry's
dialog is taken in part form a website:
"According to one history website, Indian Wars - Wyoming Tales and
Trails, 'it is, however, best charitably described as fanciful. The
Indians' attire is in error; Custer's hair is in error, he had it
closely shorn before leaving Ft. Abraham Lincoln; he is wearing a red
scarf; and, perhaps most importantly, the battle is being fought on
the wrong side of the river.'"
http://tinyurl.com/7m3nod5
The tie in with the fictional storyline is that Chris Sublett is a
beer distributor.
>
>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
------
>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
Because everybody "knew" it was lost in a fire.
>
>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
-----
>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
It was part of a cover up. Zack did that to make it look like a
robbery which is why he put it in the pawnbroker's truck.
>
>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
-----
>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
Sometimes listening in on a conversation when it is emotionally
charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
>
>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
>who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>confirm her suspicions.
------
>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
>who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>confirm her suspicions.
True, that was irresponsible of her, but since Dennis had his son
follow Levy Briggs around to see if he was using hot shots to make the
horses buck harder and was even taking surveillance pictures it is not
as if Zack was inexperienced LOL! Their son in a way WAS a private
detective.
>
>In the best of families, there's conflict between father and son. In the
>worst situation, where parents whose marriage has disintegrated force their
>children to take sides, this can only destroy the lives of the children
>who are put into a situation that's not their fault, but their parents'
>problem.
------
>In the best of families, there's conflict between father and son. In the
>worst situation, where parents whose marriage has disintegrated force their
>children to take sides, this can only destroy the lives of the children
>who are put into a situation that's not their fault, but their parents'
>problem.
Agreed.
>
>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>the son saw what was going on.
-----
>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>the son saw what was going on.
That's true, but I don't think Zack would've been so upset if his
father was having an affair with a woman.
>
>At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
>in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
>son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>her son or her husband.
-----
>At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
>in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
>son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>her son or her husband.
No she didn't. Langley thought Dennis her husband was having an affair
with Juliette. Zack told her that Dennis wasn't after Juliette asked
him to follow his dad, so Langley assumed that someone else by
coincidence beat up Chris Sublett. A painting was stolen from Chris,
so she assumed like a lot of people that robbery was the motive, which
was exactly what Zack hoped people would think She believed what Zack
told her The possibility of her husband having a homosexual affair
with Chris didn't cross her mind.
>
>Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
>with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
>The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
>the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
>The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
------
>Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
>with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
>The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
>the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
>The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
It seems that in that culture homophobia is high-higher than in the
major cities-so he denies it-and is also the motivation as to why the
son was so savage in the beating of Chris. If their "manhood" is
insulted, as Juliette Sublett said about Rodeo Riders like the read
herring Levy Briggs "...they go right for your throat". Dennis
certainly wasn't going to admit to having sex with a man even if it
made out his son to be a liar. Branch's dad will admit to an affair
with a beautiful woman even if she was married but Dennis is certainly
not going to admit to a gay affair. Chris tried to kill himself in the
hospital when he thought it was going to come out what he and Dennis
did.
In that cultural climate Zack certainly didn't want a bisexual as a
dad. If his dad was having an affair with a woman he would've been
disappointed in him but wouldn't have such a murderous reaction. As it
is Zack flipped out when Chris called him "son" so in a way Zack was
really beating his father. It was the homosexuality angle that got
Zack in such a rage and why even before he flipped out he went back
and got the hot shot. He probably only intended to shock him but as he
said he flipped out after the "son" thing.
>
>In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason.
-----
>In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason.
It probably has something to do with at least Walt's attempted/carried
out murder in Denver that we have been seeing snippets of in
flashback. That's not to say there wasn't any bad blood between them
before that as we heard through Branch's uncle in the previous episode
but Walt's flashbacks are probably the immediate cause or excuse.
>
> Branch, who
>continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
>a crime,
------
> Branch, who
>continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
>a crime,
I don't think Branch was that insubordinate this week or the last few
episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
called them out.
>
>.... takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
-----
>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
No he never would but he admires and likes Walt which is why he hasn't
been insubordinate.
Since the pilot I don't think Branch was ever once insubordinate, and
in the pilot he was snippy because Walt had been dropping the ball for
about a year and they were picking up the slack so he was a bit
resentful and open to his dad's pressure to run against Walt. But
since then despite running against him he has been obedient and backed
up Walt to the hilt, just as much a Ferg and Vic has done.
And if Walt is responsible enough to call Vic when he was drunk at a
bar when he was off duty it is unlikely he will let it interfere when
he is on duty especially when he ordered Vic take the lead at the
crime scene of Chris's beating
>
>Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
-----
>Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
He wanted to see his wife but he doesn't realize the irony that her
career is interfering eith his happiness as his did with hers.
>
>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
------
>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
Not afraid of her father-outside of being afraid of disappointing
him-she just doesn't want to keep lying to him by omission. She feels
guilty because she has a conscious and doesn't like to deceive her
dad.
>
>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
------
>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
I think he does mean what he said to Cady. I think he will surprise
you further. Branch respects his father but I don't think he is afraid
of his father, it is as his dad said, Branch likes the man. Don't be
surprised if he pulls out of the race, even if he knows whatever
secret his dad has on Walt.
>
>The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
------
>The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
He wields a mean broom. :-) He did a good job tracking down Juliet's
alibi, even if he didn't realize its significance on his own.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 20, 2012, 4:48:26 AM7/20/12
to
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>s
>>p
>>o
>>i
>>l
>>e
>>r
>>
>>s
>>p
>>a
>>c
>>e
>>. . . A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>s
>>p
>>o
>>i
>>l
>>e
>>r
>>
>>s
>>p
>>a
>>c
>>e
>>of Custer's Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which
>>are actually common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have
>>one hanging in his bar. The original was known to have been stolen
>>decades ago.
>>are actually common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have
>>one hanging in his bar. The original was known to have been stolen
>>decades ago.
>Destroyed in a fire in the 1940s was the story and Henry wouldn't have
>something so historically inaccurate hanging in his bar.
It must have been hanging in the bar, else Henry couldn't have taken
>something so historically inaccurate hanging in his bar.
it down.
>The tie in with the fictional storyline is that Chris Sublett is a
>beer distributor.
>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
>Because everybody "knew" it was lost in a fire.
. . . including potential burglars, so it would NOT have been stolen,
unless the burglar worked for the fence who sold it to the art gallery
owner. I've explained this already. Burglars steal things that are
known to be valuable, because if the penalty is the same no matter
what the value it is that you're stealing, then go for the good stuff.
>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>It was part of a cover up. Zack did that to make it look like a
>robbery which is why he put it in the pawnbroker's truck.
Again: There was no way to cover up the savagery of the beating with
>robbery which is why he put it in the pawnbroker's truck.
the distraction of a burgled painting, and the fact that he dumped it
in someone's truck made it look like the purpose of the crime was NOT to
steal the worthless painting.
>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>Sometimes listening in on a conversation when it is emotionally
>charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
>teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
Zac's age was never stated. The actor would have been 21. Even if he
>charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
>teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
was 17 and not 18, you don't have a point to make, given that he would
have been as readily manipulated by his mother either way.
>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the
>>antagonist. She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she
>>hire a divorce lawyer who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does
>>she confront her husband and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>>confirm her suspicions.
>True, that was irresponsible of her,
Irresponsible? Gee, Hunter. Do you think you are using much too strong
a word?
>but since Dennis had his son follow Levy Briggs around to see if he
>was using hot shots to make the horses buck harder and was even taking
>surveillance pictures it is not as if Zack was inexperienced LOL! Their
>son in a way WAS a private detective.
>>In the best of families, there's conflict between father and son. In the
>>worst situation, where parents whose marriage has disintegrated force their
>>children to take sides, this can only destroy the lives of the children
>>who are put into a situation that's not their fault, but their parents'
>>problem.
>Agreed.
>>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>>the son saw what was going on.
>>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>>the son saw what was going on.
>That's true, but I don't think Zack would've been so upset if his
>father was having an affair with a woman.
He was upset that his father betrayed his mother. He was upset about
>father was having an affair with a woman.
the homosexuality. He was upset about the father continuing to deny
it all, despite having been caught red handed. He was upset about
everything.
And if his mother had ordered him to kill that Jezebel because that's who
she said was sleeping with her husband, what do you think the son
would have done?
The homosexuality and the son's reaction to it, like the painting, was
a distraction.
>>At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
>>in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
>>son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>>wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>>(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>>son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>>only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>>her son or her husband.
Either she was very stupid, or she was pretending to be very stupid.
You're not obliged to act like her in your incessent quest to apologize
for every bad television script. At this point, her whole family has been
brought in for questioning, so even if she wanted to believe her earlier
theory, it's now off the table since the sheriff is telling her that it's
one of the three of them.
>Langley thought Dennis her husband was having an affair with
>Juliette. Zack told her that Dennis wasn't after Juliette asked him to
>follow his dad, so Langley assumed that someone else by coincidence beat
>up Chris Sublett.
very least, protected her son from harm because if she was assuming it
was someone else, then the potential murderer might have seen him.
>A painting was stolen from Chris, so she assumed like a lot of people
>that robbery was the motive, which was exactly what Zack hoped people
>would think She believed what Zack told her
Hunter.
>The possibility of her husband having a homosexual affair
>with Chris didn't cross her mind.
>>Branch, who continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity
>>and behaved like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather
>>than to investigate a crime,
>I don't think Branch was that insubordinate this week or the last few
>episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
>called them out.
That's 'cuz you're not paying attention. Branch was a bit smarmy about
>episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
>called them out.
his familiarity with the rodeo world with Walt earlier in the episode.
At the rodeo, when Walt asked him where they might find the suspect
(who wasn't the perpetrator), Branch was condescending to Walt when
he told him to look for bronc busters with the broncos.
Also, Branch hid a critical fact from Walt because he thought it gave
him political advantage. Being a child and not much of a politician,
he couldn't resist opening his big mouth to Starbuck who then put two
and two together.
A much stronger word than "insubordinate" applies here. Walt should have
fired him for cause.
>>.... takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>No he never would but he admires and likes Walt which is why he hasn't
>been insubordinate.
Branch sees both Walt's virtues and flaws. The viewers haven't seen too
>been insubordinate.
many of Walt's flaws, which were at their worst during the year after
his wife died.
>Since the pilot I don't think Branch was ever once insubordinate,
>and in the pilot he was snippy because Walt had been dropping the ball
>for about a year and they were picking up the slack so he was a bit
>resentful and open to his dad's pressure to run against Walt. But since
>then despite running against him he has been obedient and backed up Walt
>to the hilt, just as much a Ferg and Vic has done.
unreasonable orders (at least on television), and he doesn't want to be
fired for insubordination.
>And if Walt is responsible enough to call Vic when he was drunk at a
>bar when he was off duty it is unlikely he will let it interfere when
>he is on duty especially when he ordered Vic take the lead at the
>crime scene of Chris's beating
what's her name at the station, who in turn called Starbuck. Henry didn't
trust Walt at that point not to drive away drunk.
>>Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
>He wanted to see his wife but he doesn't realize the irony that her
>career is interfering eith his happiness as his did with hers.
I doubt the character will be all that deep. I was a little surprised
>career is interfering eith his happiness as his did with hers.
that the two of them had any passion for each other, since Starbuck the
week before left me with the impression that she didn't like him, and
probably resented him.
>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>Not afraid of her father-outside of being afraid of disappointing him-
Yes, I agree. I wrote that in a subsequent article.
>she just doesn't want to keep lying to him by omission. She feels guilty
>because she has a conscious and doesn't like to deceive her dad.
because he wasn't in the loop, which isn't a matter of conscience, Hunter,
but because Branch isn't much of a man, and therefore, not good enough
for his daughter.
>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
>I think he does mean what he said to Cady.
It doesn't matter what people say. It doesn't matter that people mean
what they say. All that matters is what people do.
Thus far, he's a weasel, and he's about to lose his lover if he doesn't
shape up.
>I think he will surprise you further.
>Branch respects his father but I don't think he is afraid of his father,
>it is as his dad said, Branch likes the man. Don't be surprised if he
>pulls out of the race, even if he knows whatever secret his dad has
>on Walt.
>>The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
>He wields a mean broom. :-) He did a good job tracking down Juliet's
>alibi, even if he didn't realize its significance on his own.
Yeah. Brilliant job on getting a description of her lover, which fit any
>alibi, even if he didn't realize its significance on his own.
man who'd ever been through Wyoming.
Hunter
Jul 20, 2012, 7:02:48 AM7/20/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:55:51 -0700 (PDT), "Smokie Darling (Annie)"
<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>=20
<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>>=20
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e
>> You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting =
>set
>> to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>> thwarted by that horrid ending.
>>=20
>> to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>> thwarted by that horrid ending.
>> This episode featured a rodeo, clowns, bronk busters, and bull riders,
>> a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>> episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>> rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>>=20
>> a theme that's actually appropriate to a western. How do you fuck an
>> episode like this up? By not setting the episode in the world of the
>> rodeo itself, just making it peripheral.
>> The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that=
>.
>> We just got a little.
>
>The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of inquiry, =
>> We just got a little.
>
>that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have been.
-------
I would've liked to see more rodeo as well, but I agree it wasn't
necessary to the story.
>
>> Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the firs=
>t,
>> the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of t=
>he
>> episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover,=
> how
>> bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
>
>I disagree, we know that he showed very little brain damage (since he wasn'=
>> bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
>
>t unconscious due to the beating). He was messed up, but istr that the doc=
>tor said he would be alright (no concussion, no brain bleeding, no brain da=
>mage).
----
Actually the doctor never said he would be alright, but in the last
scene in which Chris's heath was discussed when Walt was reading his
chart she didn't seemed to be alarmed either. I think if we were to
think that he would die or had died we would've been told so. As it is
it is to be inferred that he would eventually recover. That is also
implied by the fact that Walt took a shock like him and was alright
and Branch mentioning to his dad that Walt saved Chris's life.
>
> The wife is a gallery
>> owner who was off having an affair, which turns out to be with Branch'=
> The wife is a gallery
>;s
>> father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
>>=20
>> father (Gerald McRaney, Rick Simon); more on that later.
>> A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer=
>9;s
>> Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>> common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>> his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
>
>Lost in a fire.
------
>> Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>> common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>> his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
>
>Lost in a fire.
Yes and that is the case in real life. Here is a bit of the history of
the paiting:
"The lithograph�s initial purpose was not jingoistic, it was to sell
beer. And that it did. It stands as one of Anheuser-Busch�s most
successful ad vehicles. By 1946, the company had produced more than
150,000 copies of the lithograph. A 1933 letter from Becker to his
daughter states, �I painted Custer�s Last Fight in 1895. The original
painting is still in my possession, but unfortunately I was forced to
cut it into pieces so that a number of artists could work on it ...
making the color plates.� Becker died in Milwaukee in 1945, at age 92.
His painting hangs at Anheuser-Busch headquarters, in St. Louis.
Cassilly Adams� canvas, upon which it had been based, was presented to
the 7th Cavalry at Fort Riley sometime between 1888 and 1896. It was
lost in various moves, restored by the WPA and rehung at Fort Bliss by
1938, then destroyed by fire in 1946.
Much more (including a picture of it) at:
http://tinyurl.com/7xcpohc
Unfortunaately unlike in fiction it is unlikely that the original is
existing some where.
>
>> Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as t=
>he
>> theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was=
> too
>> savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the ori=
>ginal.
>>=20
>> Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>> it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motiv=
>e
>> for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>> the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That per=
>> for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>son
>> tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be val=
>uable
>> wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it&=
>#39;s
>> close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>> truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sherif=
>> close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>f.
>
>The painting was taken to make the beating appear to be the result of a bot=
>ched home invasion. Yes, Longmire did say that the beating seemed to be ex=
>treme for "just a theft gone wrong", but that's why it went missing.
-----
Exactly. It was meant to throw Walt off. That is why Zack put it in
the pawnbroker's truck.
>
>> At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>> and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>>=20
>> and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>> The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son=
>.
>> Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astoun=
>ding
>> police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the e=
>pisode
>> and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>>=20
>> and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>> The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's th=
>e antagonist.
>> She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce law=
>yer
>> who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>> and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>It's been shown, through several episodes, that this is a small town county=
>> who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>> and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>. Any PI hired would most likely be known to everyone in town, and the she=
>riff's office would probably be aware of "investigations". =20
------
I don't quite agree. I mean you are right it is a small county were
everyone knows your name, but I think a private eye would keep her
confidence. Still yes there is a chance she could've been found out.
>
>In her defense (and I do not agree with her reasoning), she wanted her son =
>to see if daddy was cheating on mommy with whatserface (Stacy Haiduk). Je=
>alous people do not make good decisions, emotions are not rational. Why sh=
>e'd send her 17/18 yr old son to do that is nonsensical, but she could not =
>follow him. She did not think she was putting her son (or husband) in any =
>mortal danger.
-----
True, and not in a murderous rage either. She never thought her
husband was having a homosexual affair, and it was hinted at in the
episode that homosexuality in that area is not taken lightly. Besides,
Dennis was using his son as a Private eye as well, having him follow
Levy Briggs the cheating Rodeo Rider around to see if he was using a
"Hot Shot" even taking surveillance pictures of him, so he was in a
way a private eye already and so that not out of the blue in terms of
practicallity, still yes she shouldn't have used her child like that.
>
>> At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put =
>her son
>> in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand =
>that her
>> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>> her son or her husband.
>
>...and she knew it wasn't her husband, based on what the son said that nigh=
>> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>> her son or her husband.
>
>t (after he got home), and she didn't believe that "her baby" (don't most m=
>om's consider their kids their babies, for their entire lives) could possib=
>ly have done *that* to another human being.
----
Exactly. Zack actually told her the truth-at least part of it. Her
husband wasn't cheating on her by having an affair with Juliete, so
from Langley's POV why would her son beat Chris? A Homosexual affair
never crossed her mind. And there was a painting stolen so there was a
motive for it, not connected to her son from what she knew. From her
POV It was just a coincidence that Zack was there earlier.
>
>> Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sle=
>eping
>> with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her o=
>wn.
>> The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>> to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated wit=
>> The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>h
>> the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>>=20
>> the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>> The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
>
>Which is actually pretty common among closeted people (from what I've seen =
>
>with some friends). =20
------
Yes, even in the more liberal east it still happens. New Jersey
Governor James McGreevey who resigned in 2004 is probaably the most
famous example.
>
>> In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>> yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>> own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>> seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
>> continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>> like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investi=
>> In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>> yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>> own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>> seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
>> continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>gate
>> a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>> didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised=
>> a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
> his
>> duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>> to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>> sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>> can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>You don't know that. I mean, with *that* father, would you be comfortable =
>> duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>> to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>> sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>> can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>telling a "father figure" that you respect (or God forbid, *like*) him?
------
It could be a western thing as well, but I think he will eventually,
if obliquely in a manly fashion.
>
>> Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
>
>Nah, he's just a dick.
-----
>> Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
>
>Nah, he's just a dick.
Self centered. :-) He doesn't like it that her career interferes with
their lives but he thinks nothing of how his affects her. I guess he
doesn't realize how much Victoria loves being a cop.
>
>> The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>> in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheri=
>> The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>ff's
>> race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>> can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>I did not get the impression that she was "afraid" of her father. I got th=
>> race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>> can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>e sense that she is worried about hurting him. She thinks that he hates or=
> really dislikes Branch (for whatever reason, though she seems to think it'=
>s the election). =20
------
I agree she isn't afraid of Walt. She just doesn't like lying to him
if only by omission. She has been depicted as a straight shooting
"girl scout" who won't flout the law, so she must not like sneaking
around her father's back even less, making her feel very guilty.
She does know that Walt doesn't like Branch much, but I think she also
sees it from Branch's POV because Walt *was* neglecting his duties for
a year after her mom's death and that is at least part of the reason
there was a tension we see between them. Branch running for sheriff
just aggravated it.
>
>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he feel=
>s that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints him. Sort=
>a like a parent.
------
I agree, but I think that not doing due diligence was only in the
first episode. Since then Branch has been doing his duties very
competently, but his running against him does make Walt wary,
especially when Branch response to the crowed. In any event we know
for a fact that Branch likes Walt and respects him. He refused to
distort the circumstances of why Walt was drunk at a crime scene (he
was but as we know the circumstances was perfectly understandable,
reasonable and he did the responsible thing through out) and would
drop out of the race for Cady's sake. He says to his father, a man
that clearly doesn't like Walt that he has still something to learn
from Walt's example of a sheriff. Branch isn't the bad guy he seemed
to be in the pilot.
Hunter
Jul 20, 2012, 11:17:50 AM7/20/12
to
Thanks to (Side show) Bob. :-)
Hunter
Jul 22, 2012, 10:06:13 AM7/22/12
to
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:49:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> s
>>> p
>>> o
>>> i
>>> l
>>> e
>>> r
>>>
>>> s
>>> p
>>> a
>>> c
>>> e
>
>>>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>>>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>>>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
(snip)
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> s
>>> p
>>> o
>>> i
>>> l
>>> e
>>> r
>>>
>>> s
>>> p
>>> a
>>> c
>>> e
>
>>>You know, I really wanted to like this week's episode. I was getting set
>>>to ignore this episodes flaws and just flat out enjoy it, till I was
>>>thwarted by that horrid ending.
>
>>>The episode should have featured a lot of riding, but we were denied that.
>>>We just got a little.
>
>>The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of
>>inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have
>>been.
>
>You're missing my point! This is supposed to be a western, not a soap.
>A murder set in the world of rodeo is appropriate for Longmire. A murder
>that could have been set anywhere is less interesting.
------
>>>We just got a little.
>
>>The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of
>>inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have
>>been.
>
>You're missing my point! This is supposed to be a western, not a soap.
>A murder set in the world of rodeo is appropriate for Longmire. A murder
>that could have been set anywhere is less interesting.
Well see our share not every story is gong to tie into exclusively
into the Western motif. In fact be warned. In one of the Longmire
books "Kindness Goes Unpunished", the action takes place in
Philadelphia. On the other hand the book Junkyard Dogs" has a modern
Range War as part of the plot.
>
>>>Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
>>>the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
>>>episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
>>>bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
>
>>I disagree, we know that he showed very little brain damage (since he
>>wasn't unconscious due to the beating). He was messed up, but istr that
>>the doctor said he would be alright (no concussion, no brain bleeding,
>>no brain damage).
>
>We do? I though Longmire said in a late scene that they still don't know
>if the patient will live.
------
>>>Instead, it's ordinary melodrama. There are two families. In the first,
>>>the husband is the victim. He's been beaten badly and by the end of the
>>>episode, we still don't know if he'll die, or if he does recover, how
>>>bad shape he'll be in for the rest of his life.
>
>>I disagree, we know that he showed very little brain damage (since he
>>wasn't unconscious due to the beating). He was messed up, but istr that
>>the doctor said he would be alright (no concussion, no brain bleeding,
>>no brain damage).
>
>We do? I though Longmire said in a late scene that they still don't know
>if the patient will live.
He said to the family if Chris doesn't pull though the doer would be
up for murder. Walt likely said that to sake them up because the nurse
did say there was no brain injury only a heard fribulation. Her
attitude seemed to not that concerned. Anyway it can be inferred that
he lived from what Branch said to his father at the end when he was
defending Walt.
But you have a point in the pilot when Walt shot the guy that was
trying to kill him. I don't think we ever got a clear answer if he
died or not because Walt didn't have a cell phone. However he did have
his radio in his car but he didn't look in much of a hurry to get to
his SUV. That was definitely more vague than this out come. For all we
know the guy bled out. But in the case of Chris Sublette I believe he
lived.
>
>>>A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>>>Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>>>common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>>>his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
>
>>Lost in a fire.
>
>Thank you for the correction, but that turned out to be false.
------
>>>A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction of Custer's
>>>Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which are actually
>>>common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have one hanging in
>>>his bar. The original was known to have been stolen decades ago.
>
>>Lost in a fire.
>
>Thank you for the correction, but that turned out to be false.
Almost everyone thought the original was destroyed in a fire, not
stolen so that affected the investigation until Branch's father told
Walt otherwise.
>
>>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the
>>original.
>
>>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>>The painting was taken to make the beating appear to be the result of a
>>botched home invasion. Yes, Longmire did say that the beating seemed to
>>be extreme for "just a theft gone wrong", but that's why it went
>>missing.
>
>I don't recall what the kid said, exactly, and I don't care. Dumping the
>painting in a random vehicle in Henry's parking lot didn't help to make it
>appear that the attempted murder was secondary to art burglary either,
>nor did the fact that the thief didn't steal something known to be valuable.
-----
>>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the
>>original.
>
>>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>>The painting was taken to make the beating appear to be the result of a
>>botched home invasion. Yes, Longmire did say that the beating seemed to
>>be extreme for "just a theft gone wrong", but that's why it went
>>missing.
>
>I don't recall what the kid said, exactly, and I don't care. Dumping the
>painting in a random vehicle in Henry's parking lot didn't help to make it
>appear that the attempted murder was secondary to art burglary either,
>nor did the fact that the thief didn't steal something known to be valuable.
He knew that a lot of valuable artwork was in Chris's house. He
assumed that the painting was as well even if most other people
thought it was a reproduction.
>
>In fact, the only burglar who could have possibly known the painting was
>genuine would have been one hired by the fence that she bought it from
>in the first place, and if that had happened, then the perpetrator would
>have been known. The writing of this aspect of the story was wholly
>indefensible.
-------
>In fact, the only burglar who could have possibly known the painting was
>genuine would have been one hired by the fence that she bought it from
>in the first place, and if that had happened, then the perpetrator would
>have been known. The writing of this aspect of the story was wholly
>indefensible.
Zack assumed it was valuable along with the other prices in Chris's
house. He need not have known that most people thought the original
was destroyed. He was a unthinking kid who just took the first thing
that he thought valuable to cover up the crime.
>
>>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>
>>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in
>>the episode
>>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>
>>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>>>She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
>>>who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>>>and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>>It's been shown, through several episodes, that this is a small town
>>county. Any PI hired would most likely be known to everyone in town,
>>and the sheriff's office would probably be aware of "investigations".
>
>There's no purpose in proving your husband had an affair if you want
>to stay married. If you want a divorce, you hire an attorney, who
>in turn hires the P.I. You hire them from a place, still in your state,
>in which you and your husband aren't known, as you don't want to tip
>the cheater off early.
-----
>>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>
>>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in
>>the episode
>>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>
>>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the antagonist.
>>>She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she hire a divorce lawyer
>>>who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does she confront her husband
>>>and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>>It's been shown, through several episodes, that this is a small town
>>county. Any PI hired would most likely be known to everyone in town,
>>and the sheriff's office would probably be aware of "investigations".
>
>There's no purpose in proving your husband had an affair if you want
>to stay married. If you want a divorce, you hire an attorney, who
>in turn hires the P.I. You hire them from a place, still in your state,
>in which you and your husband aren't known, as you don't want to tip
>the cheater off early.
A divorce isn't automatic. She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her
worse fears were true. She just wanted to know if her suspicions were
true. She would've gone from there if they were. If he was having an
affair with Juliet Sublette she probably would've tried to work it
out, at least that would've been an option along with ending the
marriage right then and there.
>
>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>hotel.
------
>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>hotel.
It was Branch's father that spilled the beans, not Juliet. She
admitted it after she was trapped. That had nothing to do with what
Zack did. And Chris tried to kill himself because he knew the truth
about he and Dennis was about to come out--maybe even to protect Zack.
>
>The two men had sex at one of their homes. I think she'd have had
>no trouble establishing grounds for divorce.
-----
>The two men had sex at one of their homes. I think she'd have had
>no trouble establishing grounds for divorce.
The thought of a homosexual affair between her husband and Chris
didn't cross her mind. She thought the affair was with Juliet. She
must have felt relief when Zack told her there was no affair between
her husband and Juliet. Two men married to women being in the same
house at 1am wouldn't have rose suspicions unlike a married woman
being at the home of a unmarried man at 1am, so there was no need for
Dennis and Chris to sneak around by going to another city.
>
>>In her defense (and I do not agree with her reasoning), she wanted her
>>son to see if daddy was cheating on mommy with whatserface (Stacy
>>Haiduk). Jealous people do not make good decisions, emotions are not
>>rational. Why she'd send her 17/18 yr old son to do that is
>>nonsensical, but she could not follow him. She did not think she was
>>putting her son (or husband) in any mortal danger.
>
>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
-----
>>In her defense (and I do not agree with her reasoning), she wanted her
>>son to see if daddy was cheating on mommy with whatserface (Stacy
>>Haiduk). Jealous people do not make good decisions, emotions are not
>>rational. Why she'd send her 17/18 yr old son to do that is
>>nonsensical, but she could not follow him. She did not think she was
>>putting her son (or husband) in any mortal danger.
>
>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
That there was a homosexual affair; she didn't even imagine it and
Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
sleeping with another woman.
>
>Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
>part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
>her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
>impossible to explain away.
-----
>Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
>part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
>her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
>impossible to explain away.
Only if you assume that she knew that her husband and Chris were
having an affair. She didn't, there is no indication of that. Zack
gave her the all clear. This was evident when she asked Dennis was it
true what Zack said to the sheriff that he was having an affair with
Chris. Both Zack and Walt looked at Dennis expectantly. A couple of
heart beats later Dennis said no, and that is when Zack went for dad's
throat.
>
>>> At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't
>>put her son
>>> in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't
>>understand that her
>>> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>>> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>>> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>>> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>>> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>>> her son or her husband.
>
>>...and she knew it wasn't her husband, based on what the son said that
>>night (after he got home), and she didn't believe that "her baby" (don't
>>most mom's consider their kids their babies, for their entire lives)
>>could possibly have done *that* to another human being.
>
>Uh, huh. She sent her baby forth to champion her cause, and that's exactly
>what he did. Yet she still couldn't believe he'd commit murder on
>her behalf. What is this, Becket?
-----
>>> At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't
>>put her son
>>> in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't
>>understand that her
>>> son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>>> wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>>> (that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>>> son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>>> only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>>> her son or her husband.
>
>>...and she knew it wasn't her husband, based on what the son said that
>>night (after he got home), and she didn't believe that "her baby" (don't
>>most mom's consider their kids their babies, for their entire lives)
>>could possibly have done *that* to another human being.
>
>Uh, huh. She sent her baby forth to champion her cause, and that's exactly
>what he did. Yet she still couldn't believe he'd commit murder on
>her behalf. What is this, Becket?
Because she didn't know about the affair between Chris and her
husband. All she knew that Zack told her there was no affair between
him and Juliette. Then she hears about the robbery of the work of art
at Chris's place. She just thought it was an ugly coincidence because
why would Zack do that? From her POV there was no motive.
>
>>>Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
>>>with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
>>>The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>>>to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
>>>the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
>>>The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
>
>>Which is actually pretty common among closeted people (from what I've
>>seen with some friends).
>
>At this point, potential murder has occurred and his actions have lead
>to the loss of his son and lover, but yeah, we're supposed to be more
>shocked by the homosexuality. Sorry, the comic moment annoyed me.
-----
>>>Because the story isn't adequately soapy, it was the two husbands sleeping
>>>with each other while the victim's wife was having an affair of her own.
>>>The son witnessed the sex, then entered the home after his father left
>>>to beat his lover (to death), and for no particular reason associated with
>>>the sex or beating, to steal the painting.
>
>>>The husband is still denying what is own son witnessed.
>
>>Which is actually pretty common among closeted people (from what I've
>>seen with some friends).
>
>At this point, potential murder has occurred and his actions have lead
>to the loss of his son and lover, but yeah, we're supposed to be more
>shocked by the homosexuality. Sorry, the comic moment annoyed me.
I don't think it was meant to be a comic moment just that it happens
sometimes and in that place it is a bigger deal than if it happened in
say Philadelphia.
>
>>>In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>>>yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>>>own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>>>seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
>>>continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>>>like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
>>>a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>>You don't know that. I mean, with *that* father, would you be
>>comfortable telling a "father figure" that you respect (or God forbid,
>>*like*) him?
>
>If sons liked their fathers, there would have been absolutely no literature
>written at any point in time.
-----
>>>In the continuing and uninteresting saga of Branch versus his own father,
>>>yes, as we suspected, Branch was put up to running for sheriff by his
>>>own father who claims to be promoting Branch's career but is probably
>>>seeking revenge against Walt for some boring reason. Branch, who
>>>continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity and behaved
>>>like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather than to investigate
>>>a crime, takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>>You don't know that. I mean, with *that* father, would you be
>>comfortable telling a "father figure" that you respect (or God forbid,
>>*like*) him?
>
>If sons liked their fathers, there would have been absolutely no literature
>written at any point in time.
Sure.
>
>Despite Longmire's failings as a sheriff (most of which we didn't see),
----
>Despite Longmire's failings as a sheriff (most of which we didn't see),
His failings as a Sheriff happened from when he was grieving for his
wife's death. We pick up on things in the pilot when he was,
figuratively speaking, getting back in the saddle.
>
>Branch isn't qualified as long as he's terrified of his own father. Right
>now, he's going to lose The Chin, his lover, who appears to be on the verge
>of giving him an ultimatum.
>
>If Branch is going to grow up, he better do it pretty damn quick.
------
>Branch isn't qualified as long as he's terrified of his own father. Right
>now, he's going to lose The Chin, his lover, who appears to be on the verge
>of giving him an ultimatum.
>
>If Branch is going to grow up, he better do it pretty damn quick.
He is not terrified of his dad. If he were he would've done what his
dad wanted him to do and distort the drunk at the crime scene story.
>
>>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>>I did not get the impression that she was "afraid" of her father. I got
>>the sense that she is worried about hurting him. She thinks that he
>>hates or really dislikes Branch (for whatever reason, though she seems
>>to think it's the election).
>
>Maybe your interpretation is better. But I don't think she's afraid of
>hurting her father, but disappointing him by taking a lesser man as
>her lover.
------
>>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>>I did not get the impression that she was "afraid" of her father. I got
>>the sense that she is worried about hurting him. She thinks that he
>>hates or really dislikes Branch (for whatever reason, though she seems
>>to think it's the election).
>
>Maybe your interpretation is better. But I don't think she's afraid of
>hurting her father, but disappointing him by taking a lesser man as
>her lover.
I think the former, although I don't think Walt would approve, but I
don't think she regards Branch as a "lesser man".
>
>Longmire could rightly see Branch as a child, which is definitely is,
>without hating him. That, in and of itself, makes him not good enough
>for The Chin.
>
>I'm going to give Longmire the benefit of a doubt that whatever his conflict
>with Branch's father is, it doesn't carry over to Branch. Evidence of that
>is he never fired Branch.
------
>Longmire could rightly see Branch as a child, which is definitely is,
>without hating him. That, in and of itself, makes him not good enough
>for The Chin.
>
>I'm going to give Longmire the benefit of a doubt that whatever his conflict
>with Branch's father is, it doesn't carry over to Branch. Evidence of that
>is he never fired Branch.
He doesn't blame the son for what the father-or the uncle-does. I
think he thinks that Branch is a good lawman but he still has things
to learn.
>
>Maybe he even sees something in him, far, far,
>far into the future.
-----
>Maybe he even sees something in him, far, far,
>far into the future.
I think that better describes what potential he sees in Ferg.
>
>>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>>him. Sorta like a parent.
>
>Yup, and definitely not marriage material.
-----
>>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>>him. Sorta like a parent.
>
>Yup, and definitely not marriage material.
Disagree. I think we have seen enough of Branch since the pilot to
tell he is not a bad guy even if he is running against Walt. I have
yet to see him slack off in his duties or put any of Walt and his
fellow deputies in danger.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 22, 2012, 11:23:15 AM7/22/12
to
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> s
>>>> p
>>>> o
>>>> i
>>>> l
>>>> e
>>>> r
>>>>
>>>> s
>>>> p
>>>> a
>>>> c
>>>> e
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:20:02 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> s
>>>> p
>>>> o
>>>> i
>>>> l
>>>> e
>>>> r
>>>>
>>>> s
>>>> p
>>>> a
>>>> c
>>>> e
>>>The rodeo had very little to do with the story. It was a line of
>>>inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have
>>>been.
>>You're missing my point! This is supposed to be a western, not a soap.
>>A murder set in the world of rodeo is appropriate for Longmire. A murder
>>that could have been set anywhere is less interesting.
>>>inquiry, that was followed up on, then set aside, as it should have
>>>been.
>>You're missing my point! This is supposed to be a western, not a soap.
>>A murder set in the world of rodeo is appropriate for Longmire. A murder
>>that could have been set anywhere is less interesting.
>Well see our share not every story is gong to tie into exclusively
>into the Western motif.
Generally, this hasn't been much of a western at all.
>into the Western motif.
>A divorce isn't automatic.
>She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her worse fears were true.
ruining her child's life, divorce being one of them.
>She just wanted to know if her suspicions were true.
>She would've gone from there if they were. If he was having an
>affair with Juliet Sublette she probably would've tried to work it
>out, at least that would've been an option along with ending the
>marriage right then and there.
the crap of her marriage on her son. She talks directly to her husband
to work out the problems of her marriage.
>>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>>hotel.
>It was Branch's father that spilled the beans, not Juliet.
What's the matter with your reading? Both spouses in that marriage were
cheating on each other. The wife attempted to conceal her cheating by
going to a hotel to have sex. The husband stayed home to have sex with
another man; that's not even trying to conceal.
>>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
>That there was a homosexual affair; she didn't even imagine it and
>Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
>it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
>sleeping with another woman.
Hunter, now you're making shit up to defend the bad script. The fact that
>Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
>it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
>sleeping with another woman.
she misunderstood her husband's sexuality was irrelevant to what we were
shown on screen. For the 27th time, she deliberately sent her son into
a volatile situation in which violence was highly likely to occur.
What is it about the most important point about the nature of the bad guys
in the story eludes you?
>>Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
>>part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
>>her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
>>impossible to explain away.
>Only if you assume that she knew that her husband and Chris were
>having an affair. She didn't, there is no indication of that. Zack
>gave her the all clear. This was evident when she asked Dennis was it
>true what Zack said to the sheriff that he was having an affair with
>Chris. Both Zack and Walt looked at Dennis expectantly. A couple of
>heart beats later Dennis said no, and that is when Zack went for dad's
>throat.
Now you're being an idiot, Hunter, because we've gone over this multiple
>having an affair. She didn't, there is no indication of that. Zack
>gave her the all clear. This was evident when she asked Dennis was it
>true what Zack said to the sheriff that he was having an affair with
>Chris. Both Zack and Walt looked at Dennis expectantly. A couple of
>heart beats later Dennis said no, and that is when Zack went for dad's
>throat.
times. The moment they were all called into the sheriff's office for
an interrogation because the sheriff let them know that, having ruled
everything else out, the members of this family were now his prime
suspects. The mother now have very strong reason to suspect her son,
having sent him there. Given that she knows her husband was having an
affair, but having ruled out Mrs. Sublette, fine, she still can't put
the pieces together that her husband is a homosexual. That's understandable.
But now, she knows that her son has kept something huge from her and that
he was motivated to do so because he was there and had something to do
with it.
All she kept saying to the sheriff was that her husband wasn't having an
affair with Mrs. Sublette. This woman's motherly instinct don't exist because
she put her son into harm's way in the first place, and then in that
interrogation, put her son into the frame. Lovely lady.
For the 27th time, Hunter: There was no burglarly. The crime never looked
like a burglarly gone horribly wrong, not even for a moment. The beating
was too savage and the wrong piece of artwork was stolen.
The huge point you're ignoring is that the Nunns and the Sublettes were
in business together. It's reasonable to assume that people who set up
their home to display art entertain, and that the Nunns were over to the
home for parties for business/social functions. They were probably all
friends, and they may have been there for purely social functions. The
Sublettes were hiding the stolen artwork in plain sight and would have
pointed out to people that it was a reproduction, even if not asked.
At no point would Mrs. Nunn have believed that a burglar entered that
home to steal a reproduction. I have trouble suspending disbelief that
Zac wouldn't have known it was a reproduction except that he's a teenage
boy, so even if he'd been told the painting was a fake, he might not
have paid attention. Nevertheless, for these reasons, the aspect of the
story involving the stolen painting was inferior writing.
>>>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>>>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>>>him. Sorta like a parent.
>>Yup, and definitely not marriage material.
>Disagree. I think we have seen enough of Branch since the pilot to
>tell he is not a bad guy even if he is running against Walt. I have
>yet to see him slack off in his duties or put any of Walt and his
>fellow deputies in danger.
Wow. Still ignoring what we saw on screen, I see.
>tell he is not a bad guy even if he is running against Walt. I have
>yet to see him slack off in his duties or put any of Walt and his
>fellow deputies in danger.
1) We saw Branch slack off by not conducting an interview in the pilot.
[Note: In a later episode, Walt failed to conduct a similar interview
under similar circumstances, which makes Walt a bit of a hypocrite.]
2) Branch can get whiney and complain to Longmire when assigned duties or
when he believes Longmire, and not Branch, should do something.
3) We HAVEN'T seen him stand up to his own father, despite what you've
claimed, which would take dropping out of the sheriff's race and admitting
to Longmire that he's not yet ready.
4) Most important of all, if he loves The Chin, we haven't seen him fight
for his lover, which means dating her publicly. In Branch's mind, he can't
do that because of The Chin's conflict of interest about the election and
whatever bullshit there is between the two fathers. If he wants to keep
The Chin, he must drop out of the election and eliminate any conflict
with Walt.
In theory, Branch could stay in the race and publicly date The Chin
despite the trouble that would cause for her, but we know he isn't terribly
enthusiastic about being sheriff, that his father pushed him to run.
It doesn't matter if Branch says he's willing to do these things. He's not
a Real Man (tm) till he actually does these things.
Marriage is a public act, literally, don't you think? If Branch won't be
seen with her publicly, they aren't ready to be married.
Branch is NOT marriage material for that reason alone.
Unlike a couple of other people, I never disliked Branch, but he's not
much of a man. Maybe he will be some day, but if that's not some day real
soon, he will lose his lover.
David Johnston
Jul 22, 2012, 12:06:43 PM7/22/12
to
>> A divorce isn't automatic.
>
> Yes, I know, Hunter.
>
>> She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her worse fears were true.
>
> She didn't say "divorce" at all. I said she had better alternatives than
> ruining her child's life, divorce being one of them.
>
>> She just wanted to know if her suspicions were true.
>
> Actually, she just wanted her son on her side.
> Hunter, now you're making shit up to defend the bad script. The fact that
> she misunderstood her husband's sexuality was irrelevant to what we were
> shown on screen. For the 27th time, she deliberately sent her son into
> a volatile situation in which violence was highly likely to occur.
Dano
Jul 22, 2012, 12:51:36 PM7/22/12
to
"David Johnston" wrote in message news:juh8ek$nrb$1...@dont-email.me...
============================================
Well so were Gunsmoke and Deadwood as far as that goes. As the lead
characters were law enforcement types.
But let us define "western" if there remains any question.
Well so were Gunsmoke and Deadwood as far as that goes. As the lead
characters were law enforcement types.
But let us define "western" if there remains any question.
David Johnston
Jul 22, 2012, 1:26:08 PM7/22/12
to
suzeeq
Jul 22, 2012, 1:34:33 PM7/22/12
to
Hunter
Jul 22, 2012, 3:01:30 PM7/22/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:48:26 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
I was answering your two statements at the same time. The original was
destroyed in the 1940s. Henry did have a reproduction in his bar but
he took it down because it was so inaccurate.
>
>>The tie in with the fictional storyline is that Chris Sublette is a
Don't know. In real life Budweiser used it in its advertising I
presume saloon and bar owners brought one as decoration but it is also
possible that Budweiser handed them to saloons around the country as
complementary gifts.
Sure that's why it confused Walt for a while, who would do all that to
steal it? Zack simply took the first thing he saw, the painting that
was right above him where he beat Chris and took it to make it look
like a robbery because as a teenager and simply not an art expert he
didn't know it was a reproduction but thought it was real. As it
turned out it *was* real but that was by sheer coincidence, not
because he knew better than anyone else.
Zack is a kid, he was thinking in the spur of the moment. He did have
the presence of mind to fake the crime scene by taking the picture. He
wasn't thinking that the Sheriff is going to see through it and see it
was a rage killing and he didn't know that the painting was supposed
to be a fake. He thought it was real like the other pieces of artwork
that Chris had so he put it in the pawn broker's truck. That was part
of the twist. He thought it was real because he didn't know better.
Juliette and Barlow did but not Zack and most people didn't know the
history either. Most of those who did thought the original was
destroyed.
>
True, but he looked like sounded like and acted like an adolescent so
it is likely he was a teenager. And he wasn't manipulated by his
mother. She asked him to go and he went, just like when his father
asked to follow Levy Briggs around and photograph him, he did. She
shouldn't have done that, but she didn't manipulate him into it.
Are you deliberately being hostile Adam even when I am agreeing with
you? It was irresponsible of her.
(snip)
I can agree with that but I don't think he would have been as upset if
his dad was having an affair with a woman.
She only suspected he was cheating and there is no evidence that she
would order such a thing or he would act on such orders. That didn't
happen. What did happen is that he saw two men sleeping together his
dad and a family friend and that sent him into a rage. Do I think if
it was a woman Zack would've reacted like he did? No. The trigger was
the homosexual aspect of it. I don't think he would've shocked
Juliette with the cattle prod and then beat her if he saw her sleeping
with his dad. Yelled at her, maybe call her names, maybe even slap
her, but not what he did to Chris and what he tried to do to his own
father in front of hid mom and the Sheriff.
No it wasn't. It was likely the core reason for his violent reaction
both at the crime scene and in the Sheriff's office. As Juliette said
early in the episode if rodeo rider's sense of manhood is challenged
they will go for your throat. Zack isn't a rodeo rider but that
statement was the set up for why Zack would fly into such rages twice.
That is the atmosphere Zack lived and grew up in. In some parts of the
country homosexuality is tolerated less. Imagine would happen to Zack
with his peers if it is found out that his dad slept with men? It is
in part why his own father lied and said he didn't sleep with Chris
Sublette, even if it meant making his son out to be a liar. On the
other hand Branch's dad Barlow was proud he was sleeping with Juliette
Sublette. I don't think he would be so easy going if it was a man he
was sleeping with considering where he lives.
What is wrong with you? You are constantly misinterpreting things and
assigning a motive that defies what was said in the interview with
Walt. You are just imposing your inside knowledge as an audience
member on a character. That is how stupid YOU are because you can't
separate your inside knowledge from what things the character can
know. She was told by her boy that there was no affair between her
husband and the other woman. Zack didn't tell her about the affair
between Chris and her husband. She didn't even cross her mind which is
why she asked Dennis if it was true when Walt interviewed them
together and she looked disgusted by it. Without that knowledge it is
perfectly understandable that her son was not the one responsible for
beating up Chris and stealing the painting in addition that most
mothers wouldn't think her son could do something like that. She just
thought based on the reports that a burglar did it to Chris. Sorry if
you can't figure that out by looking at how the people behave in that
scene and listening to what they said.
YES EXACTLY THAT! She thought there was nothing to hide. She didn't
think that ANYONE in her family did it. Not her, not her husband and
not her son. What is so hard for you to figure out?
If she even knew the history of it. Those who knew the history knew-or
thought they knew-it was a fake because the original was destroyed.
But she probably didn't know. So if you are saying she thought "My son
must have been the one who beat the snot out of Chris because everyone
knows that is a reproduction so the robbery is an obvious coverup"
then you are reading too much into it.
Okay maybe this is the crux of the matter and perhaps the key as to
why we see things differently: Do you think she knew her husband was
closeted homosexual?
You are seeing things that aren't there or at least blowing things out
of proportion. That was not being "insubordinate" If that is to you
insubordination then both Ruby and Vic are just as "insubordinate" as
Branch is more so in fact. It was just a friendly jibe like when he
later joked to Walt about a little invention called Caller ID after
Walt tried to lie his way out of admitting he called Lizzie Ambrose by
saying it was a misdial. The Ferge is intimated by Walt so you don't
here him joking in that way as much.
Being insubordinate is refusing to acknowledge the chain of command
and defying an order. What order has Branch defied since the pilot or
defied Walt's command since Walt came back beginning with the pilot?
What "critical fact"? That Walt was drunk at a crime scene? Juliette
told Branch's father Barlow and Barlow told Branch so he could use it
against Walt. However Branch asked Vic if it was true and he got the
facts from Vic that nothing improper happened. That is all. What was
the "critical fact" Branch withheld? And later he said to his father
he would not use it to the annoyance of his dad because Branch knew
that Walt did the responsible thing.
What cause? Branch only knew what his dad told him and he didn't use
that knowledge. There was no "critical fact" to reveal to Walt.
True he neglected his duties but he is back on the job again and he is
an excellent Sheriff which is why we haven't seen many mistakes.
Tell me an order he defied. That is being insubordinate. I don't mean
a friendly jibe at Walt.
It is not the military. Law enforcement agency's discipline is not as
strict as in the military. You can joke around with your superiors,
even making deprecating jokes at their expense within reason. You see
that all the time in cop shows with the detectives joking with their
lieutenant or captain; or patrol officers with their sergeants. In
this case it is the Deputies and the secretary getting a bit snarky
with the sheriff.
If you want to see insubordinate see Rayland Givens on "Justified". He
has been incredibly insubordinate to Deputy Chief Art Mullen because
he often defies his orders and does what he wants. Compared what
Raylan does to Art, Branch snaps to attention every time Walt walks
into the room.
He takes orders from Walt because he is a good cop and backs up the
man. I didn't like Branch either in the pilot but since then he has
shown himself to be loyal even if he is a bit full of himself
sometimes, much like Det. Stephen Holder in "The Killing". That last
scene with his father when he defended Walt when he clearly didn't
have to puts me in his corner.
I didn't say he did at first. Vic filled him in.
Nope, you got the first part wrong; and the dispatcher's name is Ruby.
[Starbuck and her husband are having hot monkey sex presumably after
an argument when her phone rings]:
Vic [into the smartphone]: What?!!?
Ruby: Did I wake you?
Vic: I'm having sex with my husband Ruby, what is it?
Ruby [flustered] Oh...Walt just called. There's a situation at the Red
Pony.
Vic [resigned] Okay [hangs up]
********
Walt called Ruby, not Henry.
He is good in bed and heated arguments turn some people on. They will
still get a divorce eventually.
Yes it is Adam, since she didn't tell him.
If she thought that of him she wouldn't be have been with him. She
knows that Walt doesn't respect Branch yet which is why you are
correct and she knows that Walt won't approve, but she sees something
more in him than Walt does right now.
You contended that he doesn't mean what he said, I think he does and
a big hint is that scene with his dad.
Considering that he said he would quit the race for her and said to
his father that he doesn't think he is quite ready to be sheriff yet.
I'd say he is shaping up.
If Walt didn't neglect his duties for so long Branch wouldn't have
run, no matter who idea it was originally to do so. Yes his dad may
have pushed him a little into it, but Walt's behavior probably made it
a relatively easy decision. Now that Walt is competent again Branch is
having second thoughts.
I think Walt neglecting his duties as Sheriff for a year had a hand in
that don't you think? Yes he was grieving for his wife to be sure but
Now that Walt is on the job again Branch is having second thoughts.
Then you believe what branch said to Cady. He said he would quit the
race for her and he said to his dad that he doesn't feel it is the
right time to run against Walt because he feels he can still learn
from the man and likes him. Doesn't seem to be a man that is
insubordinate.
If one can say Barlow is hansome.
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>o
>>>i
>>>l
>>>e
>>>r
>>>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>a
>>>c
>>>e
>
>>>. . . A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction
>>>of Custer's Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which
>>>are actually common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have
>>>one hanging in his bar. The original was known to have been stolen
>>>decades ago.
>
>>Destroyed in a fire in the 1940s was the story and Henry wouldn't have
>>something so historically inaccurate hanging in his bar.
>
>It must have been hanging in the bar, else Henry couldn't have taken
>it down.
-----
>Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>o
>>>i
>>>l
>>>e
>>>r
>>>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>a
>>>c
>>>e
>
>>>. . . A painting was stolen from the home, the notorious depiction
>>>of Custer's Last Stand. Walt is told that it's a reproduction, which
>>>are actually common throughout the area. Why, even Henry used to have
>>>one hanging in his bar. The original was known to have been stolen
>>>decades ago.
>
>>Destroyed in a fire in the 1940s was the story and Henry wouldn't have
>>something so historically inaccurate hanging in his bar.
>
>It must have been hanging in the bar, else Henry couldn't have taken
>it down.
I was answering your two statements at the same time. The original was
destroyed in the 1940s. Henry did have a reproduction in his bar but
he took it down because it was so inaccurate.
>
>>The tie in with the fictional storyline is that Chris Sublette is a
>>beer distributor.
>
>Did you get a reproduction of the painting by signing up with the distributor?
------
>
>Did you get a reproduction of the painting by signing up with the distributor?
Don't know. In real life Budweiser used it in its advertising I
presume saloon and bar owners brought one as decoration but it is also
possible that Budweiser handed them to saloons around the country as
complementary gifts.
>
>>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
>
>>Because everybody "knew" it was lost in a fire.
>
>. . . including potential burglars, so it would NOT have been stolen,
>unless the burglar worked for the fence who sold it to the art gallery
>owner. I've explained this already. Burglars steal things that are
>known to be valuable, because if the penalty is the same no matter
>what the value it is that you're stealing, then go for the good stuff.
-----
>>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
>
>>Because everybody "knew" it was lost in a fire.
>
>. . . including potential burglars, so it would NOT have been stolen,
>unless the burglar worked for the fence who sold it to the art gallery
>owner. I've explained this already. Burglars steal things that are
>known to be valuable, because if the penalty is the same no matter
>what the value it is that you're stealing, then go for the good stuff.
Sure that's why it confused Walt for a while, who would do all that to
steal it? Zack simply took the first thing he saw, the painting that
was right above him where he beat Chris and took it to make it look
like a robbery because as a teenager and simply not an art expert he
didn't know it was a reproduction but thought it was real. As it
turned out it *was* real but that was by sheer coincidence, not
because he knew better than anyone else.
>
>>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>
>>It was part of a cover up. Zack did that to make it look like a
>>robbery which is why he put it in the pawnbroker's truck.
>
>Again: There was no way to cover up the savagery of the beating with
>the distraction of a burgled painting, and the fact that he dumped it
>in someone's truck made it look like the purpose of the crime was NOT to
>steal the worthless painting.
------
>>>Later, it turns out to be the original. The art dealer bought it knowing
>>>it was a stolen work. The painting still had nothing to do with the motive
>>>for murder nor any coverup, nevertheless, the (potential) murderer stole
>>>the painting, then dumped it in the back of someone's truck. That person
>>>tried to sell the painting (I guess that it wasn't supposed to be valuable
>>>wasn't as widely known as just stated earlier in the episode). As it's
>>>close to time for the episode to end, this leads to the revelation as
>>>truck used to drop the painting off belong to someone known to the sheriff.
>
>>>At no point in the story did the painting appear to have any relevance,
>>>and in the end, it's mere plot device.
>
>>It was part of a cover up. Zack did that to make it look like a
>>robbery which is why he put it in the pawnbroker's truck.
>
>Again: There was no way to cover up the savagery of the beating with
>the distraction of a burgled painting, and the fact that he dumped it
>in someone's truck made it look like the purpose of the crime was NOT to
>steal the worthless painting.
Zack is a kid, he was thinking in the spur of the moment. He did have
the presence of mind to fake the crime scene by taking the picture. He
wasn't thinking that the Sheriff is going to see through it and see it
was a rage killing and he didn't know that the painting was supposed
to be a fake. He thought it was real like the other pieces of artwork
that Chris had so he put it in the pawn broker's truck. That was part
of the twist. He thought it was real because he didn't know better.
Juliette and Barlow did but not Zack and most people didn't know the
history either. Most of those who did thought the original was
destroyed.
>
>>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult son.
>>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
>>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>
>>Sometimes listening in on a conversation when it is emotionally
>>charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
>>teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
>
>Zac's age was never stated. The actor would have been 21. Even if he
>was 17 and not 18, you don't have a point to make, given that he would
>have been as readily manipulated by his mother either way.
-----
>>>Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview, more astounding
>>>police investigative technique, but again, we're out of time in the episode
>>>and the writers have written themselves into a corner.
>
>>Sometimes listening in on a conversation when it is emotionally
>>charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
>>teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
>
>Zac's age was never stated. The actor would have been 21. Even if he
>was 17 and not 18, you don't have a point to make, given that he would
>have been as readily manipulated by his mother either way.
True, but he looked like sounded like and acted like an adolescent so
it is likely he was a teenager. And he wasn't manipulated by his
mother. She asked him to go and he went, just like when his father
asked to follow Levy Briggs around and photograph him, he did. She
shouldn't have done that, but she didn't manipulate him into it.
>
>>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the
>>>antagonist. She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she
>>>hire a divorce lawyer who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does
>>>she confront her husband and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>>>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>>>confirm her suspicions.
>
>>True, that was irresponsible of her,
>
>Irresponsible? Gee, Hunter. Do you think you are using much too strong
>a word?
------
>>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the
>>>antagonist. She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she
>>>hire a divorce lawyer who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does
>>>she confront her husband and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>
>>>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>>>confirm her suspicions.
>
>>True, that was irresponsible of her,
>
>Irresponsible? Gee, Hunter. Do you think you are using much too strong
>a word?
Are you deliberately being hostile Adam even when I am agreeing with
you? It was irresponsible of her.
(snip)
>
>>>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>>>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>>>the son saw what was going on.
>
>>That's true, but I don't think Zack would've been so upset if his
>>father was having an affair with a woman.
>
>He was upset that his father betrayed his mother. He was upset about
>the homosexuality. He was upset about the father continuing to deny
>it all, despite having been caught red handed. He was upset about
>everything.
-----
>>>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>>>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>>>the son saw what was going on.
>
>>That's true, but I don't think Zack would've been so upset if his
>>father was having an affair with a woman.
>
>He was upset that his father betrayed his mother. He was upset about
>the homosexuality. He was upset about the father continuing to deny
>it all, despite having been caught red handed. He was upset about
>everything.
I can agree with that but I don't think he would have been as upset if
his dad was having an affair with a woman.
>
>And if his mother had ordered him to kill that Jezebel because that's who
>she said was sleeping with her husband, what do you think the son
>would have done?
-------
>And if his mother had ordered him to kill that Jezebel because that's who
>she said was sleeping with her husband, what do you think the son
>would have done?
She only suspected he was cheating and there is no evidence that she
would order such a thing or he would act on such orders. That didn't
happen. What did happen is that he saw two men sleeping together his
dad and a family friend and that sent him into a rage. Do I think if
it was a woman Zack would've reacted like he did? No. The trigger was
the homosexual aspect of it. I don't think he would've shocked
Juliette with the cattle prod and then beat her if he saw her sleeping
with his dad. Yelled at her, maybe call her names, maybe even slap
her, but not what he did to Chris and what he tried to do to his own
father in front of hid mom and the Sheriff.
>
>The homosexuality and the son's reaction to it, like the painting, was
>a distraction.
-----
>The homosexuality and the son's reaction to it, like the painting, was
>a distraction.
No it wasn't. It was likely the core reason for his violent reaction
both at the crime scene and in the Sheriff's office. As Juliette said
early in the episode if rodeo rider's sense of manhood is challenged
they will go for your throat. Zack isn't a rodeo rider but that
statement was the set up for why Zack would fly into such rages twice.
That is the atmosphere Zack lived and grew up in. In some parts of the
country homosexuality is tolerated less. Imagine would happen to Zack
with his peers if it is found out that his dad slept with men? It is
in part why his own father lied and said he didn't sleep with Chris
Sublette, even if it meant making his son out to be a liar. On the
other hand Branch's dad Barlow was proud he was sleeping with Juliette
Sublette. I don't think he would be so easy going if it was a man he
was sleeping with considering where he lives.
>
>>>At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
>>>in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
>>>son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>>>wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>>>(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>>>son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>>>only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>>>her son or her husband.
>
>>No she didn't.
>
>Either she was very stupid, or she was pretending to be very stupid.
>You're not obliged to act like her in your incessent quest to apologize
>for every bad television script. At this point, her whole family has been
>brought in for questioning, so even if she wanted to believe her earlier
>theory, it's now off the table since the sheriff is telling her that it's
>one of the three of them.
-------
>>>At the sheriff's office, she either pretends that she didn't put her son
>>>in this position, or she's so stupid that she doesn't understand that her
>>>son committed (potential) murder for her. The more she repeats what she
>>>wants to believe at this point now that (potential) murder has been
>>>(that her son committed potential murder for her), the more she puts her
>>>son into the frame. Based on her own actions, she knows full well that
>>>only one of two people could have committed that (potential) murder,
>>>her son or her husband.
>
>>No she didn't.
>
>Either she was very stupid, or she was pretending to be very stupid.
>You're not obliged to act like her in your incessent quest to apologize
>for every bad television script. At this point, her whole family has been
>brought in for questioning, so even if she wanted to believe her earlier
>theory, it's now off the table since the sheriff is telling her that it's
>one of the three of them.
What is wrong with you? You are constantly misinterpreting things and
assigning a motive that defies what was said in the interview with
Walt. You are just imposing your inside knowledge as an audience
member on a character. That is how stupid YOU are because you can't
separate your inside knowledge from what things the character can
know. She was told by her boy that there was no affair between her
husband and the other woman. Zack didn't tell her about the affair
between Chris and her husband. She didn't even cross her mind which is
why she asked Dennis if it was true when Walt interviewed them
together and she looked disgusted by it. Without that knowledge it is
perfectly understandable that her son was not the one responsible for
beating up Chris and stealing the painting in addition that most
mothers wouldn't think her son could do something like that. She just
thought based on the reports that a burglar did it to Chris. Sorry if
you can't figure that out by looking at how the people behave in that
scene and listening to what they said.
>
>>Langley thought Dennis her husband was having an affair with
>>Juliette. Zack told her that Dennis wasn't after Juliette asked him to
>>follow his dad, so Langley assumed that someone else by coincidence beat
>>up Chris Sublett.
>
>Sure she did. That's why she fully cooperated with the cops or, at the
>very least, protected her son from harm because if she was assuming it
>was someone else, then the potential murderer might have seen him.
------
>>Langley thought Dennis her husband was having an affair with
>>Juliette. Zack told her that Dennis wasn't after Juliette asked him to
>>follow his dad, so Langley assumed that someone else by coincidence beat
>>up Chris Sublett.
>
>Sure she did. That's why she fully cooperated with the cops or, at the
>very least, protected her son from harm because if she was assuming it
>was someone else, then the potential murderer might have seen him.
YES EXACTLY THAT! She thought there was nothing to hide. She didn't
think that ANYONE in her family did it. Not her, not her husband and
not her son. What is so hard for you to figure out?
>
>>A painting was stolen from Chris, so she assumed like a lot of people
>>that robbery was the motive, which was exactly what Zack hoped people
>>would think She believed what Zack told her
>
>A painting she would have been told was a reproduction? You're slipping,
>Hunter.
-----
>>A painting was stolen from Chris, so she assumed like a lot of people
>>that robbery was the motive, which was exactly what Zack hoped people
>>would think She believed what Zack told her
>
>A painting she would have been told was a reproduction? You're slipping,
>Hunter.
If she even knew the history of it. Those who knew the history knew-or
thought they knew-it was a fake because the original was destroyed.
But she probably didn't know. So if you are saying she thought "My son
must have been the one who beat the snot out of Chris because everyone
knows that is a reproduction so the robbery is an obvious coverup"
then you are reading too much into it.
>
>>The possibility of her husband having a homosexual affair
>>with Chris didn't cross her mind.
>
>Really? She had no clue why her marriage had failed? It's called denial.
-----
>>The possibility of her husband having a homosexual affair
>>with Chris didn't cross her mind.
>
>Really? She had no clue why her marriage had failed? It's called denial.
Okay maybe this is the crux of the matter and perhaps the key as to
why we see things differently: Do you think she knew her husband was
closeted homosexual?
>
>>>Branch, who continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity
>>>and behaved like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather
>>>than to investigate a crime,
>
>>I don't think Branch was that insubordinate this week or the last few
>>episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
>>called them out.
>
>That's 'cuz you're not paying attention. Branch was a bit smarmy about
>his familiarity with the rodeo world with Walt earlier in the episode.
>At the rodeo, when Walt asked him where they might find the suspect
>(who wasn't the perpetrator), Branch was condescending to Walt when
>he told him to look for bronc busters with the broncos.
-----
>>>Branch, who continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity
>>>and behaved like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather
>>>than to investigate a crime,
>
>>I don't think Branch was that insubordinate this week or the last few
>>episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
>>called them out.
>
>That's 'cuz you're not paying attention. Branch was a bit smarmy about
>his familiarity with the rodeo world with Walt earlier in the episode.
>At the rodeo, when Walt asked him where they might find the suspect
>(who wasn't the perpetrator), Branch was condescending to Walt when
>he told him to look for bronc busters with the broncos.
You are seeing things that aren't there or at least blowing things out
of proportion. That was not being "insubordinate" If that is to you
insubordination then both Ruby and Vic are just as "insubordinate" as
Branch is more so in fact. It was just a friendly jibe like when he
later joked to Walt about a little invention called Caller ID after
Walt tried to lie his way out of admitting he called Lizzie Ambrose by
saying it was a misdial. The Ferge is intimated by Walt so you don't
here him joking in that way as much.
Being insubordinate is refusing to acknowledge the chain of command
and defying an order. What order has Branch defied since the pilot or
defied Walt's command since Walt came back beginning with the pilot?
>
>Also, Branch hid a critical fact from Walt because he thought it gave
>him political advantage. Being a child and not much of a politician,
>he couldn't resist opening his big mouth to Starbuck who then put two
>and two together.
------
>Also, Branch hid a critical fact from Walt because he thought it gave
>him political advantage. Being a child and not much of a politician,
>he couldn't resist opening his big mouth to Starbuck who then put two
>and two together.
What "critical fact"? That Walt was drunk at a crime scene? Juliette
told Branch's father Barlow and Barlow told Branch so he could use it
against Walt. However Branch asked Vic if it was true and he got the
facts from Vic that nothing improper happened. That is all. What was
the "critical fact" Branch withheld? And later he said to his father
he would not use it to the annoyance of his dad because Branch knew
that Walt did the responsible thing.
>
>A much stronger word than "insubordinate" applies here. Walt should have
>fired him for cause.
------
>A much stronger word than "insubordinate" applies here. Walt should have
>fired him for cause.
What cause? Branch only knew what his dad told him and he didn't use
that knowledge. There was no "critical fact" to reveal to Walt.
>
>>>.... takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>>No he never would but he admires and likes Walt which is why he hasn't
>>been insubordinate.
>
>Branch sees both Walt's virtues and flaws. The viewers haven't seen too
>many of Walt's flaws, which were at their worst during the year after
>his wife died.
------
>>>.... takes a surprising moral stand versus his own father, that he
>>>didn't think Longmire's drinking (at least this week) compromised his
>>>duties, and he even pointed out while drunk, Longmire got the victim
>>>to the hospital, with Starbuck driving. Branch says he'd like to be
>>>sheriff in future, but in the meantime, wants to learn as much as he
>>>can from Longmire. Branch will never say it to Longmire's face.
>
>>No he never would but he admires and likes Walt which is why he hasn't
>>been insubordinate.
>
>Branch sees both Walt's virtues and flaws. The viewers haven't seen too
>many of Walt's flaws, which were at their worst during the year after
>his wife died.
True he neglected his duties but he is back on the job again and he is
an excellent Sheriff which is why we haven't seen many mistakes.
>
>>Since the pilot I don't think Branch was ever once insubordinate,
>
>Then you're alone in that opinion.
------
>>Since the pilot I don't think Branch was ever once insubordinate,
>
>Then you're alone in that opinion.
Tell me an order he defied. That is being insubordinate. I don't mean
a friendly jibe at Walt.
It is not the military. Law enforcement agency's discipline is not as
strict as in the military. You can joke around with your superiors,
even making deprecating jokes at their expense within reason. You see
that all the time in cop shows with the detectives joking with their
lieutenant or captain; or patrol officers with their sergeants. In
this case it is the Deputies and the secretary getting a bit snarky
with the sheriff.
If you want to see insubordinate see Rayland Givens on "Justified". He
has been incredibly insubordinate to Deputy Chief Art Mullen because
he often defies his orders and does what he wants. Compared what
Raylan does to Art, Branch snaps to attention every time Walt walks
into the room.
>
>>and in the pilot he was snippy because Walt had been dropping the ball
>>for about a year and they were picking up the slack so he was a bit
>>resentful and open to his dad's pressure to run against Walt. But since
>>then despite running against him he has been obedient and backed up Walt
>>to the hilt, just as much a Ferg and Vic has done.
>
>He takes Walt's orders, because thus far Walt hasn't given him any
>unreasonable orders (at least on television), and he doesn't want to be
>fired for insubordination.
-------
>>and in the pilot he was snippy because Walt had been dropping the ball
>>for about a year and they were picking up the slack so he was a bit
>>resentful and open to his dad's pressure to run against Walt. But since
>>then despite running against him he has been obedient and backed up Walt
>>to the hilt, just as much a Ferg and Vic has done.
>
>He takes Walt's orders, because thus far Walt hasn't given him any
>unreasonable orders (at least on television), and he doesn't want to be
>fired for insubordination.
He takes orders from Walt because he is a good cop and backs up the
man. I didn't like Branch either in the pilot but since then he has
shown himself to be loyal even if he is a bit full of himself
sometimes, much like Det. Stephen Holder in "The Killing". That last
scene with his father when he defended Walt when he clearly didn't
have to puts me in his corner.
>
>>And if Walt is responsible enough to call Vic when he was drunk at a
>>bar when he was off duty it is unlikely he will let it interfere when
>>he is on duty especially when he ordered Vic take the lead at the
>>crime scene of Chris's beating
>
>Uh, Branch doesn't know how Walt got his ride.
-----
>>And if Walt is responsible enough to call Vic when he was drunk at a
>>bar when he was off duty it is unlikely he will let it interfere when
>>he is on duty especially when he ordered Vic take the lead at the
>>crime scene of Chris's beating
>
>Uh, Branch doesn't know how Walt got his ride.
I didn't say he did at first. Vic filled him in.
>
> It was Henry calling
>what's her name at the station, who in turn called Starbuck. Henry didn't
>trust Walt at that point not to drive away drunk.
-----
> It was Henry calling
>what's her name at the station, who in turn called Starbuck. Henry didn't
>trust Walt at that point not to drive away drunk.
Nope, you got the first part wrong; and the dispatcher's name is Ruby.
[Starbuck and her husband are having hot monkey sex presumably after
an argument when her phone rings]:
Vic [into the smartphone]: What?!!?
Ruby: Did I wake you?
Vic: I'm having sex with my husband Ruby, what is it?
Ruby [flustered] Oh...Walt just called. There's a situation at the Red
Pony.
Vic [resigned] Okay [hangs up]
********
Walt called Ruby, not Henry.
>
>>>Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
>
>>He wanted to see his wife but he doesn't realize the irony that her
>>career is interfering eith his happiness as his did with hers.
>
>I doubt the character will be all that deep. I was a little surprised
>that the two of them had any passion for each other, since Starbuck the
>week before left me with the impression that she didn't like him, and
>probably resented him.
-----
>>>Meanwhile, we meet Mr. Starbuck, who is kind of whiney.
>
>>He wanted to see his wife but he doesn't realize the irony that her
>>career is interfering eith his happiness as his did with hers.
>
>I doubt the character will be all that deep. I was a little surprised
>that the two of them had any passion for each other, since Starbuck the
>week before left me with the impression that she didn't like him, and
>probably resented him.
He is good in bed and heated arguments turn some people on. They will
still get a divorce eventually.
>
>>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>
>>Not afraid of her father-outside of being afraid of disappointing him-
>
>Yes, I agree. I wrote that in a subsequent article.
>
>>she just doesn't want to keep lying to him by omission. She feels guilty
>>because she has a conscious and doesn't like to deceive her dad.
>
>Uh, there's a little more to it than that. Her dad wouldn't be disappointed
>because he wasn't in the loop, which isn't a matter of conscience, Hunter,
------
>>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>
>>Not afraid of her father-outside of being afraid of disappointing him-
>
>Yes, I agree. I wrote that in a subsequent article.
>
>>she just doesn't want to keep lying to him by omission. She feels guilty
>>because she has a conscious and doesn't like to deceive her dad.
>
>Uh, there's a little more to it than that. Her dad wouldn't be disappointed
>because he wasn't in the loop, which isn't a matter of conscience, Hunter,
Yes it is Adam, since she didn't tell him.
>
>but because Branch isn't much of a man, and therefore, not good enough
>for his daughter.
-------
>but because Branch isn't much of a man, and therefore, not good enough
>for his daughter.
If she thought that of him she wouldn't be have been with him. She
knows that Walt doesn't respect Branch yet which is why you are
correct and she knows that Walt won't approve, but she sees something
more in him than Walt does right now.
>
>>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>>>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>>>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
>
>>I think he does mean what he said to Cady.
>
>It doesn't matter what people say. It doesn't matter that people mean
>what they say. All that matters is what people do.
-----
>>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>
>>>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>>>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
>
>>I think he does mean what he said to Cady.
>
>It doesn't matter what people say. It doesn't matter that people mean
>what they say. All that matters is what people do.
You contended that he doesn't mean what he said, I think he does and
a big hint is that scene with his dad.
>
>Thus far, he's a weasel, and he's about to lose his lover if he doesn't
>shape up.
-----
>Thus far, he's a weasel, and he's about to lose his lover if he doesn't
>shape up.
Considering that he said he would quit the race for her and said to
his father that he doesn't think he is quite ready to be sheriff yet.
I'd say he is shaping up.
>
>>I think he will surprise you further.
>
>I hope for his sake he does, because it's no way to live his life.
-----
>>I think he will surprise you further.
>
>I hope for his sake he does, because it's no way to live his life.
If Walt didn't neglect his duties for so long Branch wouldn't have
run, no matter who idea it was originally to do so. Yes his dad may
have pushed him a little into it, but Walt's behavior probably made it
a relatively easy decision. Now that Walt is competent again Branch is
having second thoughts.
>
>>Branch respects his father but I don't think he is afraid of his father,
>
>He's fuckin' running for sheriff because his daddy made him.
-----
>>Branch respects his father but I don't think he is afraid of his father,
>
>He's fuckin' running for sheriff because his daddy made him.
I think Walt neglecting his duties as Sheriff for a year had a hand in
that don't you think? Yes he was grieving for his wife to be sure but
Now that Walt is on the job again Branch is having second thoughts.
>
>>it is as his dad said, Branch likes the man. Don't be surprised if he
>>pulls out of the race, even if he knows whatever secret his dad has
>>on Walt.
>
>Oh, that's been telegraphed.
------
>>it is as his dad said, Branch likes the man. Don't be surprised if he
>>pulls out of the race, even if he knows whatever secret his dad has
>>on Walt.
>
>Oh, that's been telegraphed.
Then you believe what branch said to Cady. He said he would quit the
race for her and he said to his dad that he doesn't feel it is the
right time to run against Walt because he feels he can still learn
from the man and likes him. Doesn't seem to be a man that is
insubordinate.
>
>>>The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
>
>>He wields a mean broom. :-) He did a good job tracking down Juliet's
>>alibi, even if he didn't realize its significance on his own.
>
>Yeah. Brilliant job on getting a description of her lover, which fit any
>man who'd ever been through Wyoming.
-------
>>>The Ferg makes four death-defying rescues, plus an old-fashioned shoot out.
>
>>He wields a mean broom. :-) He did a good job tracking down Juliet's
>>alibi, even if he didn't realize its significance on his own.
>
>Yeah. Brilliant job on getting a description of her lover, which fit any
>man who'd ever been through Wyoming.
If one can say Barlow is hansome.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 22, 2012, 2:17:51 PM7/22/12
to
don't call it a western. I strongly object that the western setting of
the story hasn't been fully exploited.
suzeeq
Jul 22, 2012, 2:52:43 PM7/22/12
to
quite a lot different than cop shows set in the big city though - a 4
person police department, no ME to hover over while doing the autopsy,
and rural terrain to examine for evidence rather than a city street or
aparment. That's what sets it apart from the other cop shows.
Dano
Jul 22, 2012, 3:06:18 PM7/22/12
to
"David Johnston" wrote in message news:juhd3g$i47$2...@dont-email.me...
===========================================
Then is "modern western" okay with you?
Then is "modern western" okay with you?
Dano
Jul 22, 2012, 3:07:58 PM7/22/12
to
"suzeeq" wrote in message news:juhdj9$lru$1...@dont-email.me...
============================================
I don't see why not. Kind of an arbitrary distinction IMHO.
I don't see why not. Kind of an arbitrary distinction IMHO.
Dano
Jul 22, 2012, 3:11:40 PM7/22/12
to
"Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
news:500c4dfd....@news.optonline.net...
<snip for brevity>
Irony. 23 KB's of commentary on an episode entitled "8 Seconds". <g>
It's only a 60 minute (minus commercials) show. I'm guessing the actual
script for this one was shorter. Certainly Walt's dialogue for the whole
season will be a whole lot less.
news:500c4dfd....@news.optonline.net...
<snip for brevity>
Irony. 23 KB's of commentary on an episode entitled "8 Seconds". <g>
It's only a 60 minute (minus commercials) show. I'm guessing the actual
script for this one was shorter. Certainly Walt's dialogue for the whole
season will be a whole lot less.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 22, 2012, 3:16:01 PM7/22/12
to
>I was answering your two statements at the same time. The original was
>destroyed in the 1940s. Henry did have a reproduction in his bar but
>he took it down because it was so inaccurate.
Answering my mostly accurate comment with an inaccurate comment isn't helpful.
>destroyed in the 1940s. Henry did have a reproduction in his bar but
>he took it down because it was so inaccurate.
I didn't recall a line of dialogue that the original was burned, not stolen,
but I'll take your word for it.
>>>>Walt's confused as the why the painting was stolen from the home as the
>>>>theft wasn't being used to cover the possible murder; the beating was too
>>>>savage for it to be robbery. The painting isn't assumed to be the original.
>>>Because everybody "knew" it was lost in a fire.
>>. . . including potential burglars, so it would NOT have been stolen,
>>unless the burglar worked for the fence who sold it to the art gallery
>>owner. I've explained this already. Burglars steal things that are
>>known to be valuable, because if the penalty is the same no matter
>>what the value it is that you're stealing, then go for the good stuff.
>Sure that's why it confused Walt for a while, who would do all that to
>steal it? . . .
Walt was confused as to why the painting was stolen. At no point was
Walt confused that a burglary that went horribly wrong had taken place,
even though he was drunk at the time.
>>>>The revelation has to do with the second family: Husband, wife, adult
>>>>son. Walt orders all three into the station for a joint interview,
>>>>more astounding police investigative technique, but again, we're out
>>>>of time in the episode and the writers have written themselves into
>>>>a corner.
>>>Sometimes listening in on a conversation when it is emotionally
>>>charged can be revealing. And Zack wasn't an adult, but an older
>>>teenager about 16 or so, a juvenile.
>>Zac's age was never stated. The actor would have been 21. Even if he
>>was 17 and not 18, you don't have a point to make, given that he would
>>have been as readily manipulated by his mother either way.
>True, but he looked like sounded like and acted like an adolescent so
>it is likely he was a teenager. And he wasn't manipulated by his
>mother. She asked him to go and he went, just like when his father
>asked to follow Levy Briggs around and photograph him, he did. She
>shouldn't have done that, but she didn't manipulate him into it.
No one said Zac wasn't a teenager. I said he was their adult son.
>it is likely he was a teenager. And he wasn't manipulated by his
>mother. She asked him to go and he went, just like when his father
>asked to follow Levy Briggs around and photograph him, he did. She
>shouldn't have done that, but she didn't manipulate him into it.
You're arguing that he's a few months younger than 18. It's an argument
without meaning.
You're stuck in pointless argument mode, Hunter, and the
only way to stop is to shut up.
>>>>The wife turned out to be the story's main villainess as she's the
>>>>antagonist. She suspects her husband of having an affair. Does she
>>>>hire a divorce lawyer who in turn hires a private detective? No. Does
>>>>she confront her husband and try to either fix or end the marriage? No.
>>>>She thinks the best thing to do is send her son to follow her husband to
>>>>confirm her suspicions.
>>>True, that was irresponsible of her,
>>Irresponsible? Gee, Hunter. Do you think you are using much too strong
>>a word?
>Are you deliberately being hostile Adam even when I am agreeing with
>you? It was irresponsible of her.
By repeating "irresponsible", you fail to acknowledge the depth of her
>you? It was irresponsible of her.
depravity. The human brain isn't fully formed until age 20 when an adult
sense of morality kicks in. The boy attempted murder because he was immature.
Mothers know their teenage sons are immature, likely to get into fights.
She riled up her son against his father, then sent him into a situation
in which the son was likely to commit violence.
She's guilty, guiltier than her son, but because she didn't say the magic
words "Kill for me; be my champion," she cannot be prosecuted. She's guilty,
but it was the son who committed the felony. She got away with attempted
murder by proxy.
You? You keep saying "She's irresponsible."
>>>>She created a situation in which violence would likely result, either the
>>>>son would have tried to beat up the father, or the father the son, when
>>>>the son saw what was going on.
>>>That's true, but I don't think Zack would've been so upset if his
>>>father was having an affair with a woman.
>>He was upset that his father betrayed his mother. He was upset about
>>the homosexuality. He was upset about the father continuing to deny
>>it all, despite having been caught red handed. He was upset about
>>everything.
>I can agree with that but I don't think he would have been as upset if
>his dad was having an affair with a woman.
. . . as in he wouldn't have tried to commit murder, probably of his father?
>his dad was having an affair with a woman.
His mother got his blood boiling. Believe what you want.
>>And if his mother had ordered him to kill that Jezebel because that's who
>>she said was sleeping with her husband, what do you think the son
>>would have done?
>She only suspected he was cheating and there is no evidence that she
>would order such a thing or he would act on such orders. . . .
Good one, Hunter. In literature, betrayed women act only on hard evidence.
You're hysterical.
>>The homosexuality and the son's reaction to it, like the painting, was
>>a distraction.
>No it wasn't. It was likely the core reason for his violent reaction
>both at the crime scene and in the Sheriff's office.
The core reason for his violence was hatred of his father, because all
>both at the crime scene and in the Sheriff's office.
sons hate their fathers to one extent or another. It's fueled in part
by betrayal of his mother, because all sons become rivals with their
fathers for their mother's affections. The homosexuality was still
another element, but it sure as hell was NOT the main motivating factor.
>As Juliette said early in the episode if rodeo rider's sense of manhood
>is challenged they will go for your throat.
>>>Langley thought Dennis her husband was having an affair with
>>>Juliette. Zack told her that Dennis wasn't after Juliette asked him to
>>>follow his dad, so Langley assumed that someone else by coincidence beat
>>>up Chris Sublett.
>>Sure she did. That's why she fully cooperated with the cops or, at the
>>very least, protected her son from harm because if she was assuming it
>>was someone else, then the potential murderer might have seen him.
>YES EXACTLY THAT! She thought there was nothing to hide. She didn't
>think that ANYONE in her family did it. Not her, not her husband and
>not her son. What is so hard for you to figure out?
1) She knew from the beginning that the attempted murder didn't start out
>think that ANYONE in her family did it. Not her, not her husband and
>not her son. What is so hard for you to figure out?
as a burglarly because she knew the painting was a reproduction.
2) Walt called the family into the office to question them, again, because
other theories of the crime had been ruled out, and Walt was left with
this family at the heart of the crime. At the time they are all called in
for additional questioning, she knows what Walt is thinking.
3) She knows what she did, but she refuses to face her own guilt. Therefore,
she pretends to believe that her son couldn't possibly have committed the
crime, or witnessed it. But her son must have committed the crime. Wouldn't
he have come forward if he were a witness?
>>>A painting was stolen from Chris, so she assumed like a lot of people
>>>that robbery was the motive, which was exactly what Zack hoped people
>>>would think She believed what Zack told her
>>A painting she would have been told was a reproduction? You're slipping,
>>Hunter.
>If she even knew the history of it.
Plot point: It was a well known reproduction commonly found in that part
of the country. She would have been at their home for parties and business
social events and, with the painting hidden in plain sight, would have
been told it was a reproduction.
>Those who knew the history knew-or thought they knew-it was a fake
>because the original was destroyed. But she probably didn't know. So
>if you are saying she thought "My son must have been the one who beat
>the snot out of Chris because everyone knows that is a reproduction so
>the robbery is an obvious coverup" then you are reading too much into it.
the important plot point.
>>>The possibility of her husband having a homosexual affair
>>>with Chris didn't cross her mind.
>>Really? She had no clue why her marriage had failed? It's called denial.
>Okay maybe this is the crux of the matter and perhaps the key as to
>why we see things differently: Do you think she knew her husband was
>closeted homosexual?
I dunno how strongly she suspected it, but the important point is that she
>why we see things differently: Do you think she knew her husband was
>closeted homosexual?
knew that he no longer desire her sexually.
>>>>Branch, who continues to be insubordinate to Walt at every opportunity
>>>>and behaved like he was at the rodeo for a campaign appearance rather
>>>>than to investigate a crime,
>>>I don't think Branch was that insubordinate this week or the last few
>>>episodes. And all he just waved to the crowd when the Rodeo announcer
>>>called them out.
>>That's 'cuz you're not paying attention. Branch was a bit smarmy about
>>his familiarity with the rodeo world with Walt earlier in the episode.
>>At the rodeo, when Walt asked him where they might find the suspect
>>(who wasn't the perpetrator), Branch was condescending to Walt when
>>he told him to look for bronc busters with the broncos.
>You are seeing things that aren't there or at least blowing things out
>of proportion. That was not being "insubordinate" If that is to you
>insubordination then both Ruby and Vic are just as "insubordinate" as
>Branch is more so in fact. It was just a friendly jibe like when he
>later joked to Walt about a little invention called Caller ID after
>Walt tried to lie his way out of admitting he called Lizzie Ambrose by
>saying it was a misdial. The Ferge is intimated by Walt so you don't
>here him joking in that way as much.
>Being insubordinate is refusing to acknowledge the chain of command
>and defying an order. What order has Branch defied since the pilot or
>defied Walt's command since Walt came back beginning with the pilot?
Oh, you don't think there's such a thing as mild insubordination that
>of proportion. That was not being "insubordinate" If that is to you
>insubordination then both Ruby and Vic are just as "insubordinate" as
>Branch is more so in fact. It was just a friendly jibe like when he
>later joked to Walt about a little invention called Caller ID after
>Walt tried to lie his way out of admitting he called Lizzie Ambrose by
>saying it was a misdial. The Ferge is intimated by Walt so you don't
>here him joking in that way as much.
>Being insubordinate is refusing to acknowledge the chain of command
>and defying an order. What order has Branch defied since the pilot or
>defied Walt's command since Walt came back beginning with the pilot?
wouldn't rise to a firing offense but let's your boss know that you're
a pain in the ass? I've stated elsewhere that he's yet to refuse a
direct order. He does argue about his orders constantly.
>>Also, Branch hid a critical fact from Walt because he thought it gave
>>him political advantage. Being a child and not much of a politician,
>>he couldn't resist opening his big mouth to Starbuck who then put two
>>and two together.
That his own father was a witness, if not participant, in important behavior
of the victim's wife? Gee. I guess that wasn't important. As the victim's
wife, she'd never have been prime suspect at any point until ruled out.
The specific location of the wife at the time of the crime, not to mention
what she was doing, isn't critical? Whatever you say, Hunter.
>That Walt was drunk at a crime scene?
pass along his disdain for Walt to Starbuck and he was at least thinking
about using it against him publicly.
>Juliette told Branch's father Barlow and Barlow told Branch so he could
>use it against Walt. However Branch asked Vic if it was true and he got
>the facts from Vic that nothing improper happened. That is all. What was
>the "critical fact" Branch withheld? And later he said to his father he
>would not use it to the annoyance of his dad because Branch knew that
>Walt did the responsible thing.
Walt had something bad against him. Branch is no virgin.
>>A much stronger word than "insubordinate" applies here. Walt should have
>>fired him for cause.
>What cause? Branch only knew what his dad told him and he didn't use
>that knowledge. There was no "critical fact" to reveal to Walt.
And what was his father doing, and with whom?
>that knowledge. There was no "critical fact" to reveal to Walt.
>>It was Henry calling what's her name at the station, who in turn called
>>Starbuck. Henry didn't trust Walt at that point not to drive away drunk.
>Nope, you got the first part wrong; and the dispatcher's name is Ruby.
Fine. Walt called Ruby, not Henry.
>>>>The Chin tries to dump Branch because she's afraid of her own father,
>>>Not afraid of her father-outside of being afraid of disappointing him-
>>Yes, I agree. I wrote that in a subsequent article.
>>>she just doesn't want to keep lying to him by omission. She feels guilty
>>>because she has a conscious and doesn't like to deceive her dad.
>>Uh, there's a little more to it than that. Her dad wouldn't be disappointed
>>because he wasn't in the loop, which isn't a matter of conscience, Hunter,
>Yes it is Adam, since she didn't tell him.
Oh, so The Chin isn't an adult responsible for her own affairs? How
very paternalistic of you, Hunter.
If it's going anywhere, The Chin should tell her father because of the
conflict of interest due to the election, NOT because an adult woman is
obliged to tell her father who she sleeps with even though they live
in close proximity.
>>but because Branch isn't much of a man, and therefore, not good enough
>>for his daughter.
>If she thought that of him she wouldn't be have been with him.
She does think that of him. She started to give him an ultimatum, but
Branch started to talk her out of it. Either Branch mans up, or she'll
issue the ultimatum.
>She knows that Walt doesn't respect Branch yet which is why you are
>correct and she knows that Walt won't approve, but she sees something
>more in him than Walt does right now.
I think that exhausts all the men close to her own age unless she wants
a Cheyene.
>>>>in a really stupid scene, but Branch says he'll drop out of the sheriff's
>>>>race to avoid that conflict between The Chin and her father and so they
>>>>can stop sleeping with each other behind his back.
>>>>Branch doesn't mean what he said, because he's still afraid of his
>>>>own father. Well, maybe we'll see if he grows a pair next week.
>>>I think he does mean what he said to Cady.
>>It doesn't matter what people say. It doesn't matter that people mean
>>what they say. All that matters is what people do.
>You contended that he doesn't mean what he said, I think he does and
>a big hint is that scene with his dad.
An even bigger hint is that,
>a big hint is that scene with his dad.
1) He hasn't told Walt, and
2) He hasn't followed through with his offer to The Chin to withdraw to
appease her.
>>Thus far, he's a weasel, and he's about to lose his lover if he doesn't
>>shape up.
>Considering that he said he would quit the race for her and said to
>his father that he doesn't think he is quite ready to be sheriff yet.
>I'd say he is shaping up.
Plenty of weasels are big talkers. We'll see what he does.
>his father that he doesn't think he is quite ready to be sheriff yet.
>I'd say he is shaping up.
>If Walt didn't neglect his duties for so long Branch wouldn't have
>run, no matter who idea it was originally to do so.
enough, he could go after the job with more enthusiasm AND get the girl.
She might even find it exciting that he's challenging her father with
gusto. But that's not how he's acting.
>>>Branch respects his father but I don't think he is afraid of his father,
>>He's fuckin' running for sheriff because his daddy made him.
>I think Walt neglecting his duties as Sheriff for a year had a hand in
>that don't you think?
Yes.
>that don't you think?
>>>Don't be surprised if he pulls out of the race, even if he knows
>>>whatever secret his dad has on Walt.
>>Oh, that's been telegraphed.
>Then you believe what branch said to Cady.
No. I'm just not expecting to be surprised, like Branch winning and Walt
working for his future son-in-law.
Hunter
Aug 5, 2012, 3:09:47 PM8/5/12
to
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:23:15 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
------
The genre is called Contemporary Western. It is the 21st century with
all the problems of the 21st century. The West isn't isolated by
distance anymore. And the state and city governments are just like the
ones east and the problems are just like in the east.
Let me ask you: What are you expecting of the show that is set in the
early 21st century as opposed to the mid and late 19th? There aren't
any train robberies anymore. Bank robberies are going to be much the
same as in the east. The open range is gone and the average small town
sheriff like Walt Longmire has a much bigger staff than those of 140
years ago. And despite Walt refusing to get a cellphone they aren't as
isolated and dependant on themselves like they were in the west. They
even have a dispatcher. Matt Dillion didn't have a dispatcher.
Most of the time they don't ride horses but in cars. And despite the
recent influx of drugs vice isn't like it used to be with prostitution
tolerated or even not illegal in the first place as it was in many
places of the Old West. Simply, it can't be what you want it to be.
Maybe you will get your cattle rustling episode, but that would be
just about it.
What is Western in this show as we have seen is how Walt polices
including ignoring a lot of procedure and laws to do real justice.
Like not notifying child protective services of the recovered children
so they would go back to an orphanage or to the foster families, but
giving them back to their proper Indian families. That is in part will
be the Western of the show mostly, one man dispensing justice his own
way.
But you seem to think Adam that she wanted one automatically.
And I agreed that she shouldn't have done that to her son, but as
badly as she mishandled the situation she need not have automatically
decided to have one.
If it came to that sure, but right then she just wanted to see if her
suspicions were justified.
It is not as black and white as you think it is. Again, she shouldn't
have done that having her son act as a private detective, but that
doesn't mean she didn't want to save her marriage. People don't
automatically divorce over adultery. Yes it often does happen but it
is not inevitable; some people do try to save the marriage..
Yes he did stay home and had his affair there because he knew that in
those areas people aren't going to assume automatically that two guys
that are close friends are having an affair just because they were at
each other houses. Homosexuality in that part of the country is still
hidden so paradoxically, and could hide in plain sight. It was nothing
noble or less sneaky that Chris and Dennis were having their affair at
Sublette's home, just taking advantage of popular prejudice.
On the other hand a married woman seen with Barlow at say 1aam in the
morning will start tongues wagging. Dennis just didn't know his son
Zack-or anyone else-would follow him peeking in his widows.
And I said she should've have done that I agree with you but she
didn't think her son would attack his father or his father attack Zack
for having an affair with a woman. A shouting match yes but violence?
Unlikely.
It was a case of bad misjudgment, but likely she thought at most a
loud argument over Dennis cheating on her with Juliet would occur, not
a near murder.
And you are a fool Adam. She figured that Walt got it wrong again and
you don't know mothers or in fact either parents feel about there
children. Logically yes she should have had reason to believe he
could've been the one who did it, but she didn't because she believed
what Zack told her and that her son could never be so brutal. If there
was no affair why would he do that? Walt must have got it wrong again.
Call it delusional if you will but it is the delusion of a mother. It
was only after Walt compared Zack's boot to the print in a picture and
Zack really started to act guilty did she begin to suspect. And even
then she didn't really believe it until she heard the homosexual
angle.
But again yes I do agree all of this could've been avoided if she
didn't have Zack follow his father.
Yes and she thought it was the end of it based on what her son told
her. If there was no affair, then there would be no motive at all for
Zack to beat the family friend nearly to death.
Again I am not saying she did the right thing buy putting her son in
between, but that doesn't mean she didn't love her son. You are taking
her misjudgment too far.
Show me where I said it was. I NEVER said there was. I said repeatedly
it was made to look like a burgluary by Zaack to cover up the crime as
a spur of the moment thing.
And for the 28th time I said Zack tried to make it look like a
burglary to cover up the crime show me where I said otherwise. Zack
just took what was handy never thinking that it was a fake. If he knew
that it was fake and he was thinking more clearly then he would've
taken another piece of artwork. The fact that he failed to fool Walt
doesn't negate the fact that he tried. You are thinking he was more
calculating and should've or knew that it was a fake. He wasn't. He
was just an emotional kid. An adult would be lucky to be clearer
thinking under those circumstances.
But not necessarily Zack would know that. He was likely off with his
friends when they had social functions. What teenager would want to
hang out with his parents during those? All he probably knew was that
it was some sort of artwork and he grabbed the first thing he saw
which was right above the place after he beat Chris It wasn't that he
plotted this out carefully and thoroughly with aforethought. In that
way you are giving him too much credit. Al it was that he had the
presence of mind to make the crime scene look like a robbery, but he
did not know that the paint was fake. That is why he illogically took
it and planted it in the pawnshop owner's truck. He simply didn't know
that the painting was a reproduction, likely because he didn't know
the history behind the painting and being a kid that made it more
likely. Those actions say he didn't know better.
That is exactly what it was! Zack was just a kid who didn't know
better and just came up with an ad hoc story to mislead the Sheriff
Department. If he knew the painting was fake he wouldn't have used it
to fake a robbery but something legitimate to better sell the story
which Walt believed right up until Bob the Clown told him about the
truck with the bumper sticker and Walt knew who that truck belonged
too. For all she knew the thief could've been just as ignorant as her
son. Walt himself didn't know t was a reproduction until he looked it
up in a book, so a lot of people didn't know the history behind the
painting.
> Nevertheless, for these reasons, the aspect of the
>story involving the stolen painting was inferior writing.
-----
No it is not "inferior writing", you just giving Mrs. Nunn too much
credit of calculations and underestimating her motherly love because
of the reckless thing she did. She could've thought as a plausible
theory would be that a drug addicted knowing that there was valuable
artworks in the house just took that, and it happened to be a repro
and not the real thing. As it was they had a suspect Briggs and he did
it. But not her son could do such a thing.
You are being selective over what you see and over emphasizing some
things. You are totally ignoring all the times, which is essetially
every time, that Branch follwed what Walt said.
And you are not reading what I read. I said *since* the pilot, not
including the pilot. In any event, that was probably bad police work
not following up with the interview but Walt wasn't back yet so it
wasn't directed against him so that doesn't count.
So he is whiney" and snarky but he does his job and does it well.
SINCE the pilot what thing he hasn't done for Walt when he was ordered
or asked to do? You still haven't named one. If you want to see
insubordination look at how Raylan treats Art on "Justified" and how
Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson treats Chief Pope on "The Closer".
That is insubordination, not some snarky comment about not owning a
cellphone and the like.
Yes he did stand up to his father. He didn't use the distorted version
of the Walt was drunk at a crime scene story. Now I do agree if he
really doesn't feel he should replace Walt he should drop out but that
doesn't mean he is following his dad wishes slavishly. And Branch
doesn't have to admit to Walt that he has a lot to learn from him. He
could as a jesture of the respect and affection he feels for him but
he doesn't have to admit it.
It is more likely he knows that Walt doesn't like him. There is no
conflict of interest is you are talking in a legal sense. Just that
they both know that Walt won't approve. He won't like the fact that
Cady is dating the man that is trying to replace him but t is not a
conflict of interest, just a conflict of the heart that Cady feels.
And I believe he will.
To the contrary I think he was following her wishes. When she broke it
off by not accepting his calls it was her that shied away from him in
public. This was just before she was almost killed by that knife
wielding cult member and Branch saved her life.
I think if there is a choice of marrying Cady and dropping out of the
race he would choose Cady and I do think he wants to marry her. Walt
won't like it and he will be mad at Branch, probably trying to punch
him out but Branch would fight for her.
I think he realizes that with Cady not accepting his calls but he
will fight for her.
The genre is called Contemporary Western. It is the 21st century with
all the problems of the 21st century. The West isn't isolated by
distance anymore. And the state and city governments are just like the
ones east and the problems are just like in the east.
Let me ask you: What are you expecting of the show that is set in the
early 21st century as opposed to the mid and late 19th? There aren't
any train robberies anymore. Bank robberies are going to be much the
same as in the east. The open range is gone and the average small town
sheriff like Walt Longmire has a much bigger staff than those of 140
years ago. And despite Walt refusing to get a cellphone they aren't as
isolated and dependant on themselves like they were in the west. They
even have a dispatcher. Matt Dillion didn't have a dispatcher.
Most of the time they don't ride horses but in cars. And despite the
recent influx of drugs vice isn't like it used to be with prostitution
tolerated or even not illegal in the first place as it was in many
places of the Old West. Simply, it can't be what you want it to be.
Maybe you will get your cattle rustling episode, but that would be
just about it.
What is Western in this show as we have seen is how Walt polices
including ignoring a lot of procedure and laws to do real justice.
Like not notifying child protective services of the recovered children
so they would go back to an orphanage or to the foster families, but
giving them back to their proper Indian families. That is in part will
be the Western of the show mostly, one man dispensing justice his own
way.
>
>>A divorce isn't automatic.
>
>Yes, I know, Hunter.
------
>>A divorce isn't automatic.
>
>Yes, I know, Hunter.
But you seem to think Adam that she wanted one automatically.
>
>>She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her worse fears were true.
>
>She didn't say "divorce" at all. I said she had better alternatives than
>ruining her child's life, divorce being one of them.
------
>>She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her worse fears were true.
>
>She didn't say "divorce" at all. I said she had better alternatives than
>ruining her child's life, divorce being one of them.
And I agreed that she shouldn't have done that to her son, but as
badly as she mishandled the situation she need not have automatically
decided to have one.
>
>>She just wanted to know if her suspicions were true.
>
>Actually, she just wanted her son on her side.
-----
>>She just wanted to know if her suspicions were true.
>
>Actually, she just wanted her son on her side.
If it came to that sure, but right then she just wanted to see if her
suspicions were justified.
>
>>She would've gone from there if they were. If he was having an
>>affair with Juliet Sublette she probably would've tried to work it
>>out, at least that would've been an option along with ending the
>>marriage right then and there.
>
>Uh, no, Hunter. Woman who wants to work on her marriage does not inflict
>the crap of her marriage on her son. She talks directly to her husband
>to work out the problems of her marriage.
-----
>>She would've gone from there if they were. If he was having an
>>affair with Juliet Sublette she probably would've tried to work it
>>out, at least that would've been an option along with ending the
>>marriage right then and there.
>
>Uh, no, Hunter. Woman who wants to work on her marriage does not inflict
>the crap of her marriage on her son. She talks directly to her husband
>to work out the problems of her marriage.
It is not as black and white as you think it is. Again, she shouldn't
have done that having her son act as a private detective, but that
doesn't mean she didn't want to save her marriage. People don't
automatically divorce over adultery. Yes it often does happen but it
is not inevitable; some people do try to save the marriage..
>
>>>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>>>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>>>hotel.
>
>>It was Branch's father that spilled the beans, not Juliet.
>
>What's the matter with your reading? Both spouses in that marriage were
>cheating on each other. The wife attempted to conceal her cheating by
>going to a hotel to have sex. The husband stayed home to have sex with
>another man; that's not even trying to conceal.
-------
>>>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>>>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>>>hotel.
>
>>It was Branch's father that spilled the beans, not Juliet.
>
>What's the matter with your reading? Both spouses in that marriage were
>cheating on each other. The wife attempted to conceal her cheating by
>going to a hotel to have sex. The husband stayed home to have sex with
>another man; that's not even trying to conceal.
Yes he did stay home and had his affair there because he knew that in
those areas people aren't going to assume automatically that two guys
that are close friends are having an affair just because they were at
each other houses. Homosexuality in that part of the country is still
hidden so paradoxically, and could hide in plain sight. It was nothing
noble or less sneaky that Chris and Dennis were having their affair at
Sublette's home, just taking advantage of popular prejudice.
On the other hand a married woman seen with Barlow at say 1aam in the
morning will start tongues wagging. Dennis just didn't know his son
Zack-or anyone else-would follow him peeking in his widows.
>
>>>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>>>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
>
>>That there was a homosexual affair; she didn't even imagine it and
>>Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
>>it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
>>sleeping with another woman.
>
>Hunter, now you're making shit up to defend the bad script. The fact that
>she misunderstood her husband's sexuality was irrelevant to what we were
>shown on screen. For the 27th time, she deliberately sent her son into
>a volatile situation in which violence was highly likely to occur.
-------
>>>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>>>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
>
>>That there was a homosexual affair; she didn't even imagine it and
>>Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
>>it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
>>sleeping with another woman.
>
>Hunter, now you're making shit up to defend the bad script. The fact that
>she misunderstood her husband's sexuality was irrelevant to what we were
>shown on screen. For the 27th time, she deliberately sent her son into
>a volatile situation in which violence was highly likely to occur.
And I said she should've have done that I agree with you but she
didn't think her son would attack his father or his father attack Zack
for having an affair with a woman. A shouting match yes but violence?
Unlikely.
>
>What is it about the most important point about the nature of the bad guys
>in the story eludes you?
-----
>What is it about the most important point about the nature of the bad guys
>in the story eludes you?
It was a case of bad misjudgment, but likely she thought at most a
loud argument over Dennis cheating on her with Juliet would occur, not
a near murder.
>
>>>Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
>>>part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
>>>her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
>>>impossible to explain away.
>
>>Only if you assume that she knew that her husband and Chris were
>>having an affair. She didn't, there is no indication of that. Zack
>>gave her the all clear. This was evident when she asked Dennis was it
>>true what Zack said to the sheriff that he was having an affair with
>>Chris. Both Zack and Walt looked at Dennis expectantly. A couple of
>>heart beats later Dennis said no, and that is when Zack went for dad's
>>throat.
>
>Now you're being an idiot, Hunter, because we've gone over this multiple
>times. The moment they were all called into the sheriff's office for
>an interrogation because the sheriff let them know that, having ruled
>everything else out, the members of this family were now his prime
>suspects. The mother now have very strong reason to suspect her son,
>having sent him there. Given that she knows her husband was having an
>affair, but having ruled out Mrs. Sublette, fine, she still can't put
>the pieces together that her husband is a homosexual. That's understandable.
>But now, she knows that her son has kept something huge from her and that
>he was motivated to do so because he was there and had something to do
>with it.
-----
>>>Even if I can accept your theory of temporary failure of judgment on her
>>>part for putting her son in the middle of her failed marriage and putting
>>>her son into a highly explosive situation, her subsequent actions are
>>>impossible to explain away.
>
>>Only if you assume that she knew that her husband and Chris were
>>having an affair. She didn't, there is no indication of that. Zack
>>gave her the all clear. This was evident when she asked Dennis was it
>>true what Zack said to the sheriff that he was having an affair with
>>Chris. Both Zack and Walt looked at Dennis expectantly. A couple of
>>heart beats later Dennis said no, and that is when Zack went for dad's
>>throat.
>
>Now you're being an idiot, Hunter, because we've gone over this multiple
>times. The moment they were all called into the sheriff's office for
>an interrogation because the sheriff let them know that, having ruled
>everything else out, the members of this family were now his prime
>suspects. The mother now have very strong reason to suspect her son,
>having sent him there. Given that she knows her husband was having an
>affair, but having ruled out Mrs. Sublette, fine, she still can't put
>the pieces together that her husband is a homosexual. That's understandable.
>But now, she knows that her son has kept something huge from her and that
>he was motivated to do so because he was there and had something to do
>with it.
And you are a fool Adam. She figured that Walt got it wrong again and
you don't know mothers or in fact either parents feel about there
children. Logically yes she should have had reason to believe he
could've been the one who did it, but she didn't because she believed
what Zack told her and that her son could never be so brutal. If there
was no affair why would he do that? Walt must have got it wrong again.
Call it delusional if you will but it is the delusion of a mother. It
was only after Walt compared Zack's boot to the print in a picture and
Zack really started to act guilty did she begin to suspect. And even
then she didn't really believe it until she heard the homosexual
angle.
But again yes I do agree all of this could've been avoided if she
didn't have Zack follow his father.
>
>All she kept saying to the sheriff was that her husband wasn't having an
>affair with Mrs. Sublette.
-----
>All she kept saying to the sheriff was that her husband wasn't having an
>affair with Mrs. Sublette.
Yes and she thought it was the end of it based on what her son told
her. If there was no affair, then there would be no motive at all for
Zack to beat the family friend nearly to death.
>
>This woman's motherly instinct don't exist because
>she put her son into harm's way in the first place, and then in that
>interrogation, put her son into the frame. Lovely lady.
-----
>This woman's motherly instinct don't exist because
>she put her son into harm's way in the first place, and then in that
>interrogation, put her son into the frame. Lovely lady.
Again I am not saying she did the right thing buy putting her son in
between, but that doesn't mean she didn't love her son. You are taking
her misjudgment too far.
>
>For the 27th time, Hunter: There was no burglarly.
------
>For the 27th time, Hunter: There was no burglarly.
Show me where I said it was. I NEVER said there was. I said repeatedly
it was made to look like a burgluary by Zaack to cover up the crime as
a spur of the moment thing.
>
> The crime never looked
>like a burglarly gone horribly wrong, not even for a moment. The beating
>was too savage and the wrong piece of artwork was stolen.
------
> The crime never looked
>like a burglarly gone horribly wrong, not even for a moment. The beating
>was too savage and the wrong piece of artwork was stolen.
And for the 28th time I said Zack tried to make it look like a
burglary to cover up the crime show me where I said otherwise. Zack
just took what was handy never thinking that it was a fake. If he knew
that it was fake and he was thinking more clearly then he would've
taken another piece of artwork. The fact that he failed to fool Walt
doesn't negate the fact that he tried. You are thinking he was more
calculating and should've or knew that it was a fake. He wasn't. He
was just an emotional kid. An adult would be lucky to be clearer
thinking under those circumstances.
>
>The huge point you're ignoring is that the Nunns and the Sublettes were
>in business together. It's reasonable to assume that people who set up
>their home to display art entertain, and that the Nunns were over to the
>home for parties for business/social functions. They were probably all
>friends, and they may have been there for purely social functions. The
>Sublettes were hiding the stolen artwork in plain sight and would have
>pointed out to people that it was a reproduction, even if not asked.
-----
>The huge point you're ignoring is that the Nunns and the Sublettes were
>in business together. It's reasonable to assume that people who set up
>their home to display art entertain, and that the Nunns were over to the
>home for parties for business/social functions. They were probably all
>friends, and they may have been there for purely social functions. The
>Sublettes were hiding the stolen artwork in plain sight and would have
>pointed out to people that it was a reproduction, even if not asked.
But not necessarily Zack would know that. He was likely off with his
friends when they had social functions. What teenager would want to
hang out with his parents during those? All he probably knew was that
it was some sort of artwork and he grabbed the first thing he saw
which was right above the place after he beat Chris It wasn't that he
plotted this out carefully and thoroughly with aforethought. In that
way you are giving him too much credit. Al it was that he had the
presence of mind to make the crime scene look like a robbery, but he
did not know that the paint was fake. That is why he illogically took
it and planted it in the pawnshop owner's truck. He simply didn't know
that the painting was a reproduction, likely because he didn't know
the history behind the painting and being a kid that made it more
likely. Those actions say he didn't know better.
>
>At no point would Mrs. Nunn have believed that a burglar entered that
>home to steal a reproduction. I have trouble suspending disbelief that
>Zac wouldn't have known it was a reproduction except that he's a teenage
>boy, so even if he'd been told the painting was a fake, he might not
>have paid attention.
------
>At no point would Mrs. Nunn have believed that a burglar entered that
>home to steal a reproduction. I have trouble suspending disbelief that
>Zac wouldn't have known it was a reproduction except that he's a teenage
>boy, so even if he'd been told the painting was a fake, he might not
>have paid attention.
That is exactly what it was! Zack was just a kid who didn't know
better and just came up with an ad hoc story to mislead the Sheriff
Department. If he knew the painting was fake he wouldn't have used it
to fake a robbery but something legitimate to better sell the story
which Walt believed right up until Bob the Clown told him about the
truck with the bumper sticker and Walt knew who that truck belonged
too. For all she knew the thief could've been just as ignorant as her
son. Walt himself didn't know t was a reproduction until he looked it
up in a book, so a lot of people didn't know the history behind the
painting.
> Nevertheless, for these reasons, the aspect of the
>story involving the stolen painting was inferior writing.
No it is not "inferior writing", you just giving Mrs. Nunn too much
credit of calculations and underestimating her motherly love because
of the reckless thing she did. She could've thought as a plausible
theory would be that a drug addicted knowing that there was valuable
artworks in the house just took that, and it happened to be a repro
and not the real thing. As it was they had a suspect Briggs and he did
it. But not her son could do such a thing.
>
>>>>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>>>>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>>>>him. Sorta like a parent.
>
>>>Yup, and definitely not marriage material.
>
>>Disagree. I think we have seen enough of Branch since the pilot to
>>tell he is not a bad guy even if he is running against Walt. I have
>>yet to see him slack off in his duties or put any of Walt and his
>>fellow deputies in danger.
>
>Wow. Still ignoring what we saw on screen, I see.
-----
>>>>I don't think Longmire hates or even dislikes Branch. I think that he
>>>>feels that Branch doesn't do his due diligence, and that disappoints
>>>>him. Sorta like a parent.
>
>>>Yup, and definitely not marriage material.
>
>>Disagree. I think we have seen enough of Branch since the pilot to
>>tell he is not a bad guy even if he is running against Walt. I have
>>yet to see him slack off in his duties or put any of Walt and his
>>fellow deputies in danger.
>
>Wow. Still ignoring what we saw on screen, I see.
You are being selective over what you see and over emphasizing some
things. You are totally ignoring all the times, which is essetially
every time, that Branch follwed what Walt said.
>
>1) We saw Branch slack off by not conducting an interview in the pilot.
>[Note: In a later episode, Walt failed to conduct a similar interview
>under similar circumstances, which makes Walt a bit of a hypocrite.]
------
>1) We saw Branch slack off by not conducting an interview in the pilot.
>[Note: In a later episode, Walt failed to conduct a similar interview
>under similar circumstances, which makes Walt a bit of a hypocrite.]
And you are not reading what I read. I said *since* the pilot, not
including the pilot. In any event, that was probably bad police work
not following up with the interview but Walt wasn't back yet so it
wasn't directed against him so that doesn't count.
>
>2) Branch can get whiney and complain to Longmire when assigned duties or
>when he believes Longmire, and not Branch, should do something.
------
>2) Branch can get whiney and complain to Longmire when assigned duties or
>when he believes Longmire, and not Branch, should do something.
So he is whiney" and snarky but he does his job and does it well.
SINCE the pilot what thing he hasn't done for Walt when he was ordered
or asked to do? You still haven't named one. If you want to see
insubordination look at how Raylan treats Art on "Justified" and how
Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson treats Chief Pope on "The Closer".
That is insubordination, not some snarky comment about not owning a
cellphone and the like.
>
>3) We HAVEN'T seen him stand up to his own father, despite what you've
>claimed, which would take dropping out of the sheriff's race and admitting
>to Longmire that he's not yet ready.
---------
>3) We HAVEN'T seen him stand up to his own father, despite what you've
>claimed, which would take dropping out of the sheriff's race and admitting
>to Longmire that he's not yet ready.
Yes he did stand up to his father. He didn't use the distorted version
of the Walt was drunk at a crime scene story. Now I do agree if he
really doesn't feel he should replace Walt he should drop out but that
doesn't mean he is following his dad wishes slavishly. And Branch
doesn't have to admit to Walt that he has a lot to learn from him. He
could as a jesture of the respect and affection he feels for him but
he doesn't have to admit it.
>
>4) Most important of all, if he loves The Chin, we haven't seen him fight
>for his lover, which means dating her publicly. In Branch's mind, he can't
>do that because of The Chin's conflict of interest about the election and
>whatever bullshit there is between the two fathers. If he wants to keep
>The Chin, he must drop out of the election and eliminate any conflict
>with Walt.
------
>4) Most important of all, if he loves The Chin, we haven't seen him fight
>for his lover, which means dating her publicly. In Branch's mind, he can't
>do that because of The Chin's conflict of interest about the election and
>whatever bullshit there is between the two fathers. If he wants to keep
>The Chin, he must drop out of the election and eliminate any conflict
>with Walt.
It is more likely he knows that Walt doesn't like him. There is no
conflict of interest is you are talking in a legal sense. Just that
they both know that Walt won't approve. He won't like the fact that
Cady is dating the man that is trying to replace him but t is not a
conflict of interest, just a conflict of the heart that Cady feels.
>
>In theory, Branch could stay in the race and publicly date The Chin
>despite the trouble that would cause for her, but we know he isn't terribly
>enthusiastic about being sheriff, that his father pushed him to run.
>
>It doesn't matter if Branch says he's willing to do these things. He's not
>a Real Man (tm) till he actually does these things.
-----
>In theory, Branch could stay in the race and publicly date The Chin
>despite the trouble that would cause for her, but we know he isn't terribly
>enthusiastic about being sheriff, that his father pushed him to run.
>
>It doesn't matter if Branch says he's willing to do these things. He's not
>a Real Man (tm) till he actually does these things.
And I believe he will.
>
>Marriage is a public act, literally, don't you think? If Branch won't be
>seen with her publicly, they aren't ready to be married.
-----
>Marriage is a public act, literally, don't you think? If Branch won't be
>seen with her publicly, they aren't ready to be married.
To the contrary I think he was following her wishes. When she broke it
off by not accepting his calls it was her that shied away from him in
public. This was just before she was almost killed by that knife
wielding cult member and Branch saved her life.
>
>Branch is NOT marriage material for that reason alone.
---
>Branch is NOT marriage material for that reason alone.
I think if there is a choice of marrying Cady and dropping out of the
race he would choose Cady and I do think he wants to marry her. Walt
won't like it and he will be mad at Branch, probably trying to punch
him out but Branch would fight for her.
>
>Unlike a couple of other people, I never disliked Branch, but he's not
>much of a man. Maybe he will be some day, but if that's not some day real
>soon, he will lose his lover.
-----
>Unlike a couple of other people, I never disliked Branch, but he's not
>much of a man. Maybe he will be some day, but if that's not some day real
>soon, he will lose his lover.
I think he realizes that with Cady not accepting his calls but he
will fight for her.
suzeeq
Aug 5, 2012, 2:15:42 PM8/5/12
to
libraries and bookstores, not the Westerns section. You'll find Louis
L'Amour and William Johnston in the Westerns where the stories are
mostly set in the 19th century. Tony Hillerman's mysteries are set in
contemporary western Indian reservations, but again, they're mysteries,
not 'westerns'.
Dano
Aug 5, 2012, 2:27:51 PM8/5/12
to
"suzeeq" wrote in message news:jvmd8e$uq6$1...@dont-email.me...
==========================================
Okay. Can I choose to call it a "western" styled "Mystery" then? A hybrid
of sorts? Silly stuff.
Okay. Can I choose to call it a "western" styled "Mystery" then? A hybrid
of sorts? Silly stuff.
mikeos
Aug 5, 2012, 2:53:14 PM8/5/12
to
On 22/07/2012 20:11, Dano wrote:
> "Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
> news:500c4dfd....@news.optonline.net...
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> Irony. 23 KB's of commentary on an episode entitled "8 Seconds". <g>
>
> It's only a 60 minute (minus commercials) show.
Yes, minus about 15 minutes. Average length is just below 44 minutes.
> "Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
> news:500c4dfd....@news.optonline.net...
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
> Irony. 23 KB's of commentary on an episode entitled "8 Seconds". <g>
>
> It's only a 60 minute (minus commercials) show.
Pretty good for a US show. Generally they get through a story in 40 to
41 minutes. Recent episode of CSI came in at 38 minutes (We watch in the
UK, minus commercials).
suzeeq
Aug 5, 2012, 3:02:04 PM8/5/12
to
do you call Jessica Fletcher stories - a 'Nor'easter styled' mystery?
Where the story is set is secondary to the genre of cop/detective/mystery.
Adam H. Kerman
Aug 5, 2012, 3:29:34 PM8/5/12
to
>The genre is called Contemporary Western. It is the 21st century with
>all the problems of the 21st century. The West isn't isolated by
>distance anymore. And the state and city governments are just like the
>ones east and the problems are just like in the east.
This hasn't been much of a western at all. Sorry to keep harping on this
>all the problems of the 21st century. The West isn't isolated by
>distance anymore. And the state and city governments are just like the
>ones east and the problems are just like in the east.
utterly obvious point, but your skull is bizarrely thick.
>Let me ask you: What are you expecting of the show that is set in the
>early 21st century as opposed to the mid and late 19th?
You're the one with the incurable reading comprehension problem.
>>>A divorce isn't automatic.
>>Yes, I know, Hunter.
>But you seem to think Adam that she wanted one automatically.
I didn't think anything of the kind, Hunter. Your reading comprehension
problem has gotten ugly. Perhaps it would have been best if you'd let
this dead thread from weeks ago remain dead.
You're an extremely ugly and obnoxious person for not letting this
thread lie here dead.
>>>She didn't say she wanted a divorce if her worse fears were true.
>>She didn't say "divorce" at all. I said she had better alternatives than
>>ruining her child's life, divorce being one of them.
>And I agreed that she shouldn't have done that to her son, but as
>badly as she mishandled the situation she need not have automatically
>decided to have one.
Here's a possible way to have handled the situation:
>badly as she mishandled the situation she need not have automatically
>decided to have one.
"Honey, your father has moved out because I asked him to. I came to realize
that we weren't in love any more."
Instead,
"Honey, my marriage has fallen apart and it's all your father's fault. He's
been cheating on me with that horrid woman. I know he's as her house right
now. I want you to go over to witness his infidelity.
"Even though you're a teenage boy and it takes little to rile you up,
especially against your father, I don't want you to get angry enough
to kill anyone, despite the way I'm manipulating you."
>>>She just wanted to know if her suspicions were true.
>>Actually, she just wanted her son on her side.
>If it came to that sure, but right then she just wanted to see if her
>suspicions were justified.
Excellent explanation that totally contradicts what we saw on tv. Typical
>suspicions were justified.
Hunter: Never give up, never surrender, no matter how much you must ignore
what the episode showed us. If she needed to confirm her suspicions without
manipulating her son, she would have kept him out of it entirely and gone
over there herself.
>>>She would've gone from there if they were. If he was having an
>>>affair with Juliet Sublette she probably would've tried to work it
>>>out, at least that would've been an option along with ending the
>>>marriage right then and there.
>>Uh, no, Hunter. Woman who wants to work on her marriage does not inflict
>>the crap of her marriage on her son. She talks directly to her husband
>>to work out the problems of her marriage.
>It is not as black and white as you think it is.
It is utterly black and white in that it's her marriage and not her son's
marriage and having her son find evidence of his father's infidelity in
no way solves any problem in her marriage, but does spread her misery
to her son.
The only third parties who might get involved in a useful way are marriage
counselors, not sons, because they are paid to be neutral. No son could
possibly be, especially one set up to be a witness to infidelity.
>Again, she shouldn't have done that having her son act as a private
>detective, but that doesn't mean she didn't want to save her marriage.
infidelity in her son's face is not step one in saving a marriage.
It's clearly step one in taking a bad situation and making it much,
much worse, which is what we saw happen.
>People don't automatically divorce over adultery.
witnesses to infidelity.
>Yes it often does happen but it is not inevitable; some people do try
>to save the marriage..
to witness infidelity.
How many more times must this obvious fact be repeated till the
clue gets processed?
>>>>It's not an insurmountable problem. Also, note that the gallery owner
>>>>wife is the only one trying to conceal her affair, as she went to a
>>>>hotel.
>>>It was Branch's father that spilled the beans, not Juliet.
>>What's the matter with your reading? Both spouses in that marriage were
>>cheating on each other. The wife attempted to conceal her cheating by
>>going to a hotel to have sex. The husband stayed home to have sex with
>>another man; that's not even trying to conceal.
>Yes he did stay home and had his affair there because he knew that in
>those areas people aren't going to assume automatically that two guys
>that are close friends are having an affair just because they were at
>each other houses.
The observation had nothing to do with homosexuality. Cheaters who
>those areas people aren't going to assume automatically that two guys
>that are close friends are having an affair just because they were at
>each other houses.
don't want to rub their cheating in their spouse's face don't cheat at
home. What, the wife wouldn't have noticed that he'd had sex with someone
upon returning home?
That's what hotels are for. There's someone to clean, and you don't
expect your spouse to go into the room you cheated in immediately after.
He cheated at home. He wasn't trying to conceal it from his wife. It's
almost like they had an open marriage.
>>>>The only way she couldn't have thought she was putting either into mortal
>>>>danger (let alone the Jezebel) was that she wasn't thinking at all.
>>>That there was a homosexual affair; she didn't even imagine it and
>>>Zack didn't tell her. She shouldn't have used her son to find out but
>>>it is not likely that Zack would react violently if his dad was
>>>sleeping with another woman.
>>Hunter, now you're making shit up to defend the bad script. The fact that
>>she misunderstood her husband's sexuality was irrelevant to what we were
>>shown on screen. For the 27th time, she deliberately sent her son into
>>a volatile situation in which violence was highly likely to occur.
>And I said she should've have done that I agree with you but she
>didn't think her son would attack his father or his father attack Zack
>for having an affair with a woman. A shouting match yes but violence?
>Unlikely.
She DID anticipate it would happen. She's a grown woman. Women figure
>didn't think her son would attack his father or his father attack Zack
>for having an affair with a woman. A shouting match yes but violence?
>Unlikely.
out how to gain a man's sympathy through emotional manipulation when they
are little girls. This was her son, the one male she'd have the strongest
bond with of all!
You are being willfully obtuse here. She deliberately riled him up,
then sent him into a volatile situation. Violence was utterly predictable
and the most likely result.
>>What is it about the most important point about the nature of the bad guys
>>in the story eludes you?
>It was a case of bad misjudgment, but likely she thought at most a
>loud argument over Dennis cheating on her with Juliet would occur, not
>a near murder.
So, absolutely everything about this most important point of the story utterly
>loud argument over Dennis cheating on her with Juliet would occur, not
>a near murder.
eludes you.
I can't continue reading any more of your bullshit. crapsnip
Dano
Aug 5, 2012, 4:13:48 PM8/5/12
to
"mikeos" wrote in message news:TNmdnZ24F6WGXIPN...@bt.com...
======================================
Well THAT was a totally irrelevant and worthless comment. Thanks for that.
For bringing it to everyone's attention that there are commercials inserted
in TV shows.
Oh brother...
Well THAT was a totally irrelevant and worthless comment. Thanks for that.
For bringing it to everyone's attention that there are commercials inserted
in TV shows.
Oh brother...
Dano
Aug 5, 2012, 4:17:32 PM8/5/12
to
"suzeeq" wrote in message news:jvmfvb$dth$1...@dont-email.me...
==============================================
I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
just be BOTH?
I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
just be BOTH?
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Aug 5, 2012, 4:49:59 PM8/5/12
to
On Sunday, August 5, 2012 2:17:32 PM UTC-6, Dano wrote:
> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:jvmfvb$dth$1...@dont-email.me...
> It's a contemporary mystery set in a small town in a Western state. What
>
> do you call Jessica Fletcher stories - a 'Nor'easter styled' mystery?
>
> Where the story is set is secondary to the genre of cop/detective/mystery.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
>
> like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
>
>
>
> If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
>
> in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
>
> few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
>
> called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
>
> just be BOTH?
So... by that reckoning, Dallas is also a "western" (they were boots and cowboy hats and sometimes ride horses and some of the men are laconic) <giggle>. Just yankin' your chain, Dano.
> "suzeeq" wrote in message news:jvmfvb$dth$1...@dont-email.me...
> It's a contemporary mystery set in a small town in a Western state. What
>
> do you call Jessica Fletcher stories - a 'Nor'easter styled' mystery?
>
> Where the story is set is secondary to the genre of cop/detective/mystery.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
>
>
>
> I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
>
> like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
>
>
>
> If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
>
> in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
>
> few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
>
> called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
>
> just be BOTH?
suzeeq
Aug 5, 2012, 5:04:11 PM8/5/12
to
Dano wrote:
> ==============================================
>
> I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
> like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
>
> If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
> in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
> few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
> called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
> just be BOTH?
I suppose it could be. Kerman thinks it should be strictly a western
> ==============================================
>
> I stand by my view that if it walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...looks
> like a duck...well it's a duck dammit.
>
> If they wear cowboy hats...ride horses (even only occasionally)...and talk
> in a slight western drawl...and the male stars are somewhat laconic and of
> few words...well it's at least partly owing to the genre that used to be
> called a "western". Why exactly does this notion bother you so? Can't it
> just be BOTH?
though, as in old time western. It's not.
suzeeq
Aug 5, 2012, 5:05:19 PM8/5/12
to
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Aug 5, 2012, 5:22:16 PM8/5/12
to
Dano
Aug 5, 2012, 6:20:09 PM8/5/12
to
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" wrote in message
news:9d58b829-059c-4e3e...@googlegroups.com...
============================================================
Eh. I'd have no issue with someone calling that a Western soap opera
either. But do they pack six guns (all right...THAT may be archaic) and
wear cowboy hats? :-)
I never watched the original, but this thing looks appallingly bad to me.
Just going by the promos. Hagman looks SO natural. Just like when he was
still alive.
news:9d58b829-059c-4e3e...@googlegroups.com...
Eh. I'd have no issue with someone calling that a Western soap opera
either. But do they pack six guns (all right...THAT may be archaic) and
wear cowboy hats? :-)
I never watched the original, but this thing looks appallingly bad to me.
Just going by the promos. Hagman looks SO natural. Just like when he was
still alive.
mikeos
Aug 6, 2012, 4:44:37 AM8/6/12
to
Dano
Aug 6, 2012, 7:43:17 AM8/6/12
to
"mikeos" wrote in message news:1YWdnYcyhq5qHoLN...@bt.com...
======================================
Well I'm in the states. And BBC America shows plenty of commercials my
friend. So thanks a bunch. :)
Well I'm in the states. And BBC America shows plenty of commercials my
friend. So thanks a bunch. :)
mikeos
Aug 6, 2012, 10:18:44 AM8/6/12
to
0 new messages