Everyone was just disposed of in the end.

Abshir's daughters- gone, not there for the gifting of the house.

Cara- gone. Mentioned off hand.

How much time did we spend at that stupid jeans store? Tons. Gone.

Dougie- showed up, but not given much to do. Like literally, Vincent Pastore got more to do than Dougie did.

OK- this was always about Whitney and Asher, but all these people were put in their paths.

And the show never cared about them in any meaningful way.

It was just dissatisfying and felt disjointed. You can't tell me they wrote 10 episodes in advance, and all of them were marching to a point. They definitely wrote 9, then said "let's go crazy at the end".

Nothing about this was cohesive.

Mindfks are fun. But this show is called The Curse. And at the end of it, I'm more interested in Rachael Ray's camera lady than I am the girl who set THE CURSE (because she was given nothing to do after being given a lot to do). Just complete and total disposal of characters.

Did we watch the same show?

Those characters were "disposed of" because they were disposable - to Whitney and Ashton.

That was the entire point. It wasn't that the show didn't care about them, rather, Whitney and Ashton were exposed as not caring about them "in any meaningful way." Ultimately, Abshir, his daughters, Cara, etc, were nothing more than pawns to a couple of privileged, hypocritical, eco-obsessed, assh*le faux philanthropists.

Otherwise, I still don't understand what they could have possibly shown with any of those characters that would have contributed to the end of the story in any meaningful way. What else did we need to see either of Abshir's daughters do? Also, Cara had a complete arc (Whitney's dirty money ultimately meant more to her than what she stood for with her art, and not wanting to "sell her soul" to vapid billionaires was the last straw), and was already a shown as becoming a masseuse. That, and you really needed closure for the jeans store? Why? What else could they have done there? It was simply another thing in a long list that Whitney used to feed her ego.

In the end, Whitney and Asher destroyed damn near everything in their path so as to be perceived as do-gooders, while doing actual good was a distant second. And I feel like the filmmakers absolutely nailed that aspect, in that the only purpose of all of those characters was to bring that point home.

Quote:

---

Did we watch the same show?

Those characters were "disposed of" because they were disposable - to Whitney and Ashton.

That was the entire point. It wasn't that the show didn't care about them, rather, Whitney and Ashton were exposed as not caring about them "in any meaningful way."

---

You tell me if we watched the same show.

You called him "Ashton" twice, when his name was definitely Asher.

He was so disposable, you can't even remember his name (which was the point, but wasn't).

Fielder, Safdie, and Stone cared only about themselves. And spent a lot of hours trying to make us care about other people, while only caring about themselves.

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Did we watch the same show?

Those characters were "disposed of" because they were disposable - to Whitney and Ashton.

That was the entire point. It wasn't that the show didn't care about them, rather, Whitney and Ashton were exposed as not caring about them "in any meaningful way."

---

You tell me if we watched the same show.

You called him "Ashton" twice, when his name was definitely Asher.

He was so disposable, you can't even remember his name (which was the point, but wasn't).

Fielder, Safdie, and Stone cared only about themselves. And spent a lot of hours trying to make us care about other people, while only caring about themselves.

---

This is such a weirdly offended reaction, one that is so prominent on TexAgs. Where people assume the absolute worst in filmmakers, pull nonsense projections out of their ass, and ascribe them baselessly.

As for me calling him Ashton, that was clearly a brain fart, not some greater evidence of his disposability. Especially considering I've called him Asher in literally every other post, and have praised Fielder nonstop.

Quote:

---

This is such a weirdly offended reaction that is seemingly so prominent on TexAgs. Where people assume the absolute worst in filmmakers, pull nonsense projections out of their ass, and ascribe them baselessly to others.

---

Ok BB.

It's so seemingly prominent that you would disagree with anyone posting anything you don't like, and go nuts if anyone doesn't agree with you.

Sorry that you don't like well thought out points.

It's OK for us to disagree on how something landed.

It's not OK for you to pretend that every "filmmaker" in the world is the greatest thing ever, and any one who's questions that is "seemingly so prominent on TexAgs".

People can have different, well thought out opinions.

Your continuing condescension when anyone doesn't agree with you is certainly a thing, though.

I've said multiple times in this thread that this show "isn't for everyone" and that I completely understand people not liking it. Which directly contradicts the idea that I "would disagree with anyone posting anything I don't like."

Nor am "going nuts" right now, not in any way, shape or form. If anything, you're being just as passionate in your argument as you claim I'm being in mine - you perhaps even more so than me - nor am I the one, out of the two of us, making this personal.

Again, everything you're saying is a projection, none of it based in the reality of the actual discussion.

As for your "well thought out points," I simply didn't find them to be substantive arguments, as much as they were a list of personal aggrievements. And when I pressed you for more detail/to expand on each of those complaints, all you came back with was that I typed the main character's name wrong. You couldn't tell me WHY those things were bad, only that you thought they were bad. Initially, I simply asked people to explain how those ancillary threads/characters could have been better wrapped up. And still, no one - not even you - has answered that question. Again, just listing things that didn't meet your personal expectations isn't the same as explaining how those things could have been better handled, especially in light of what the show was obviously trying to do.

Finally, in no way do I "pretend that every filmmaker in the world is the greatest thing ever," which is complete nonsense disputed by how many I name on this very board who I'm not a fan of. Nor do I give two sh*ts whether you think these filmmakers, in particular, are great. It's just that when you angrily and hilariously accuse them of "caring only about themselves," with zero evidence to back that claim up, I'm going to laugh and call it out.

Quote:

---

It's just that when you angrily and hilariously accuse them of "caring only about themselves," with zero evidence to back that claim up, I'm going to laugh and call it out.

---

Zero Evidence?

Like did you forget that all of the rest of the cast disappeared in the finale?

(You're smart enough not to, but you seemed to.)

Vincent Pastore, who doesn't even have a cookbook, got so much attention this finale, and the rest of the cast disappeared.

That is absolute evidence that Fielder/Stone/Safdie cared only about themselves.

Do you need more?

Again, as I previously stated, this SHOW IS NOT COHESIVE AT ALL.

AT ALL.

You literally ignored that point (because you ignore points and go on weird diatribes, and accuse TexAgs of being something if they don't agree with you).

But what more evidence do you need sir?

I've explained three times now how I thought that the arcs for the ancillary characters were either ALREADY wrapped up by the end of episode nine, or DIDN'T WARRANT any further screen time, because there was simply nothing left to do with them. For the fourth time now, I'm asking WHY do you feel that those characters needed more screen time in episode ten and WHAT would you have done to better wrap up their arcs? You just keep angrily stating over and over that they should have been given more screen time, yet you've offered zero substantive explanations as to what else, specifically, we needed to see from them. What I'm arguing in return is that there was nothing left for the filmmakers to do with them. And when I keep asking what YOU would have done with those characters, you won't tell me. You just keep saying they weren't there, as if that answers my initial question, which it doesn't. Literally, if you just read the words I wrote, and took five seconds to actually process them, instead of projecting all this nonsense about me, you would understand that.

I watched this finale two nights ago and I'm still dumbfounded...

I already heard that it was an all-time "wtf" finale... so I was somewhat prepared that we may not get a straightforward conclusion... but no way in hell was I expecting that...

I don't even know how I feel about it... In a vacuum, I think it was an amazing, standalone piece of television. It was hilarious, weird, really cool, and just so bonkers - that I have to respect it. But I legitimately go back and forth between thinking it was brilliant... and that it was a complete cop-out. Or possibly just a troll/joke for Safdie and Fielder? And sometimes I think that in itself is funny... But then again I was such a fan of the show and was so invested in how it would end, that I probably did want a bit of a more straightforward conclusion.


The fact I'm thinking so much about it, makes me think it actually was kind of brilliant?? Not many shows have me contemplating the ending as much as that did. And I've begged everyone I know to watch it so I can discuss it with someone else. I need to dive into some articles and breakdowns and see if there's a good explanation out there. I just haven't had time to yet.


Other quick thoughts:

Despite the ending and whether or not you think Safdie and Fielder disrespected their audience... there's no denying how brilliant these two are. Between this and all of their past projects - they are so interesting and clearly on another level than most of their contemporaries. We always complain about originality in Hollywood... but holy **** do these two (and Josh Safdie) bring that in spades to every project.

Emma Stone is in a league of her own. Tons of great actresses out there but I've said before, she's the best current actress and is in her absolute prime right now. What a back-to-back start to 2024 with this and Poor Things. Two pretty abstract and incredibly bold projects for an A++ lister. And she was incredible in both. She's just phenomenal... and it's pretty awesome that she went all in on this.

I died laughing when the guy in the bedroom said "I'm telling everybody" and just stared at them

I've never seen a show be so good at being uncomfortable. I couldn't go 5 minutes during the entire series without shifting in my seat from pure cringe awkwardness. But at the same time, so damn hilarious.


Seriously, did Safdie and Fielder sit around and smoke a joint when they were writing and trying to think of an ending... and one of them said... "Hey, you know what would be hilarious?"

Also... already knowing people were saying "wtf was that ending?" - ten minutes in I was convinced the entire finale was going to be an hour-long Rachel Ray episode with Asher and Whitney just smiling uncomfortably in the background

Now I can't stop thinking about how this might have been ever better than what we got.

I was excited for this show but never started it. I'm a big fan of Nathan For You and The Rehearsal, so I get Fielder's style of commentary. Is the consensus that this is still work checking out?

Sex Panther said:

---

I don't even know how I feel about it... In a vacuum, I think it was an amazing, standalone piece of television. It was hilarious, weird, really cool, and just so bonkers - that I have to respect it. But I legitimately go back and forth between thinking it was brilliant... and that it was a complete cop-out. Or possibly just a troll/joke for Safdie and Fielder? And sometimes I think that in itself is funny... But then again I was such a fan of the show and was so invested in how it would end, that I probably did want a bit of a more straightforward conclusion.

I died laughing when the guy in the bedroom said "I'm telling everybody" and just stared at them

Seriously, did Safdie and Fielder sit around and smoke a joint when they were writing and trying to think of an ending... and one of them said... "Hey, you know what would be hilarious?"

---

This sums up my thoughts on the finale perfectly.

And to TCTTS' point about them wrapping some stuff up, sure they jumped ahead 8 months and told us or showed us in 10 seconds how some stuff turned out (Asher/Emma are still together, their show is streamed, Doug may be doing a little better, etc). But that's it, it was just "well here is where everyone is in 8 months, you can fill in all the blanks about how they got to this point." If most shows did this, and jumped ahead a certain amount of time into the future without any explanation of what happened prior to that time, I feel like everyone would call it a cop out. This wasn't jumping ahead at the very end to show where people are after spending a whole episode making the season come to a conclusion. This was jumping ahead the entire episode and not filling anything in. That's the definition of a cop out in my opinion when you are talking about a season long arc. But because it's fielder and safdie, we are supposed to think it's brilliant and not a cop out.

Again, I loved the finale as a stand alone episode. And it's so unique and unusual that maybe it was worth it for them to do it this way (honestly, it probably was). But in no way do I think you can also say that it wrapped everything up in a satisfactory way. They wrapped everything up in like 2 mins and the rest was the WTF moments. So it's easy to see why some people don't like it after getting invested in the characters and the story for the entire season. If a finale to any show wrappped everything up with a 5 minute jump forward, without having a wtf moment, I didn't think anyone would be happy with that.

Quinn said:

---

I was excited for this show but never started it. I'm a big fan of Nathan For You and The Rehearsal, so I get Fielder's style of commentary. Is the consensus that this is still work checking out?

---

Definitely worth watching. I loved the show.

How can I (honestly) explain this show to a skeptical person in a way that will convince them to watch it?

Also how did he find so many unknown actors that were so good at matching that awkward cringey style he has? Did they take a Fielder Method class?

Counterpoint said:

---

How can I (honestly) explain this show to a skeptical person in a way that will convince them to watch it?

---

I haven't even bothered trying to get 90% of people I know to watch. I've only recommended it to people who I know love either Nathan Fielder or the Safdie Brothers, and even then I've warned them that it's the most batsh*t thing ever. But Emma Stone is a good selling point, as is the skewering of the hypocrisy of faux do-gooders, certain ultra-woke liberals, etc.

It all came off to me as one big troll job of the audience while at the same time mocking some of these do-gooder flip shows and woke types. I guess I am missing the genius, although Stone was good at it.