Exactly.
*** PRESUMED INNOCENT *** (Jake Gyllenhaal Apple TV+ Series)
24,637 Views |
277 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by 20ag07
They would have told us though, if they had a new star. And I don't think they would have renewed publicly without a star attached, if it wasn't still Gylly.Quote:
This is almost assuredly what they're going to do. "New case," as Apple's official announcement put it = new cast. Yes, I think a couple of characters will likely bleed over, serving as connective tissue, and it will likely take place in the same city (Chicago)/court system. Otherwise, they'll cast a new, big-name lead or two each season, almost True Detective style, maybe even eventually expanding to different cities, and go from there.
Apple had never been super rushy on their renewal releases.
The timing is weird. That's probably too much inside baseball for most here
I'll bet you anything Gyllenhaal doesn't come back as a cast member. They mentioned him as a returning executive producer only, for a reason.
Also, they can absolutely make a season two announcement before having a new star signed. That kind of thing happens all the time. Also, it's Apple. They can get damn near anyone they want, without fret, seeing as they're willing to pay just about anything to get them.
As for Apple not being super rushy on their renewal releases, A) that's not always true, and B) it's their most-watched drama ever. Seems this would be the exception to the rule, if ever there was one. That, and it creates buzz heading into the homestretch. We're all talking about it, aren't we?
You're way overthinking this.
Also, they can absolutely make a season two announcement before having a new star signed. That kind of thing happens all the time. Also, it's Apple. They can get damn near anyone they want, without fret, seeing as they're willing to pay just about anything to get them.
As for Apple not being super rushy on their renewal releases, A) that's not always true, and B) it's their most-watched drama ever. Seems this would be the exception to the rule, if ever there was one. That, and it creates buzz heading into the homestretch. We're all talking about it, aren't we?
You're way overthinking this.
No, you and I are talking about it, and everyone else is bored.
Fully agree with all of thisTCTTS said:20ag07 said:
I absolutely hated Ep7. And I do want to like this show. I really do.
But it was all so so so so bad.
Rusty representing himself? Just no.
Tommy Molto as the penultimate red herring? (I've been saying you could see that coming from miles away, at exactly the time it did).
Lorraine continues to just be there (she did it).
I have no idea what happens. None. I'm also not sure at all why Apple dropped a S2 announcement when they did.
Eh, I still can't get enough of it.
Yes, the drama is beyond soapy and over-the-top at this point.
Yes, it was ridiculous how forced the whole Raymond thing was, having him go down like that, only for a doctor, not even five minutes into the episode, be like, "He's actually better than ever now!" All so a situation could be contrived to get Rusty to represent himself and on the stand, with both Raymond and Mya somehow back at his side by episode's end. They needed at least two episodes to even remotely pull that off, so to do it one was pretty ridiculous.
Despite both of those things, though, it's addictive as hell, and pretty damn fun in the process.
I have totally changed my mind on the miniseries format.
The Practice (run by David E Kelley, who is writing here) was formative for me, in terms of watching adult shows.
You never really knew if a case was going to run 1,3, or 13 episodes, or bleed into the next season.
Here, I know you're doing exactly 8 eps. So I know that what you're throwing at me in ep 7 is bull****, bc you're saving it for the finale. And I knew from miles away you were gonna throw me Tommy Molto in ep 7.
Cliffhanger every week is fun, but when they all turn into non-starters, I start to roll my eyes and say whatever.
Where the writing is really bad (and it has been in way too many spots for me), is the Bunny Davis (guy in jail), and his assumed accomplice.
How they bring that home in the next 45 minutes, I don't know. Probably the most ridiculous shot of the whole thing was the accomplice sitting in the courtroom.
The Practice (run by David E Kelley, who is writing here) was formative for me, in terms of watching adult shows.
You never really knew if a case was going to run 1,3, or 13 episodes, or bleed into the next season.
Here, I know you're doing exactly 8 eps. So I know that what you're throwing at me in ep 7 is bull****, bc you're saving it for the finale. And I knew from miles away you were gonna throw me Tommy Molto in ep 7.
Cliffhanger every week is fun, but when they all turn into non-starters, I start to roll my eyes and say whatever.
Where the writing is really bad (and it has been in way too many spots for me), is the Bunny Davis (guy in jail), and his assumed accomplice.
How they bring that home in the next 45 minutes, I don't know. Probably the most ridiculous shot of the whole thing was the accomplice sitting in the courtroom.
It is interesting how terribly unikable and unsympathetic Gylenhaal's Rusty is in this adaptation. He is a an absolute a-
For the movie watchers:
-We know the wife did it there
-I don't think she can here
-The crooked judge is the reason the trial is off. I don't think they can make her crooked here (Just given she's a black woman)
-The way we find out in the movie that the wife did it, is when Rusty finds the bloody hammer in the toolbox (after he gets off when the crooked judge releases the case)
-The 3 head wounds, consistent with the bloody hammer, were brought up in one of the last episodes
-Carolyn Pohlemas was sleeping with EVERYONE in the movie. She was sleeping with Rusty, Tommy, and Raymond. We haven't really gone there yet, but there's still an episode.
How you fit all this in, in 45 minutes, doesn't seem to work.
The daughter does not exist in the movie. So her introduction here is interesting. They didn't really need to add an extra kid. So do they make the daughter do it instead of the wife? They already red herring'd us on the son.
-There is still something with the Raymond Colson character-the way they morphed him from the source material. I don't think we're done there yet.
-We know the wife did it there
-I don't think she can here
-The crooked judge is the reason the trial is off. I don't think they can make her crooked here (Just given she's a black woman)
-The way we find out in the movie that the wife did it, is when Rusty finds the bloody hammer in the toolbox (after he gets off when the crooked judge releases the case)
-The 3 head wounds, consistent with the bloody hammer, were brought up in one of the last episodes
-Carolyn Pohlemas was sleeping with EVERYONE in the movie. She was sleeping with Rusty, Tommy, and Raymond. We haven't really gone there yet, but there's still an episode.
How you fit all this in, in 45 minutes, doesn't seem to work.
The daughter does not exist in the movie. So her introduction here is interesting. They didn't really need to add an extra kid. So do they make the daughter do it instead of the wife? They already red herring'd us on the son.
-There is still something with the Raymond Colson character-the way they morphed him from the source material. I don't think we're done there yet.
**** me, I thought I clicked on a different thread notification, hovered over your spoiler text, and in reading your first sentence immediately realized what thread I was in.
I had made it SEVEN ****ing episodes too. I was at the damn finish line.
On the first page I asked that we keep ALL spoiler talk out of this thread. Not behind spoiler tags, but OFF THE THREAD, period.
Even if I hadn't accidentally hovered over you text, which is ultimately on me, you're risking someone else replying and forgetting to use spoiler text, or someone hinting/winking at something as the conversation progresses, etc, and I just don't know why we can't keep that **** out of here for SIX more days.
Come on, man.
****.
I had made it SEVEN ****ing episodes too. I was at the damn finish line.
On the first page I asked that we keep ALL spoiler talk out of this thread. Not behind spoiler tags, but OFF THE THREAD, period.
Even if I hadn't accidentally hovered over you text, which is ultimately on me, you're risking someone else replying and forgetting to use spoiler text, or someone hinting/winking at something as the conversation progresses, etc, and I just don't know why we can't keep that **** out of here for SIX more days.
Come on, man.
****.
Calm down man. That's exactly what spoiler tags exist for.
And if you read my spoiler tagged post (which was on you), you'd know I still have no idea what the hell is going on.
Literally everything in my post is that what happened in the movie can't happen in the show.
And if you read my spoiler tagged post (which was on you), you'd know I still have no idea what the hell is going on.
Literally everything in my post is that what happened in the movie can't happen in the show.
I asked multiple times that we not discuss spoilers in a thread *I* started for this show. I don't give a **** about spoiler tags. Like I said, just having the conversation, even behind spoiler tags, can lead to someone else accidentally ruining it for everyone else. It's obviously your prerogative to do whatever the hell you want, but the fact that you aren't showing even an ounce of remorse, while telling me to "calm down" in reaction to having the book's/movie's killer spoiled, after making it this far, is pretty ****ing ****ty.
Remorse for what?
You clicking on a post that was clearly spoiler tagged.
Yeah man, I'm sorry you did that.
You've been around here way long enough to know how spoiler tags work. And have posted plenty yourself.
Would you like me to show remorse for what others might do?
Everything in that "spoiler" tag, shows that I, and no one else, has any idea what the hell will happen.
You clicking on a post that was clearly spoiler tagged.
Yeah man, I'm sorry you did that.
You've been around here way long enough to know how spoiler tags work. And have posted plenty yourself.
Would you like me to show remorse for what others might do?
Everything in that "spoiler" tag, shows that I, and no one else, has any idea what the hell will happen.
BECAUSE I ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES NOT TO POST *ANY* SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD.
And as the author of this thread, I feel like I have some say in that regard.
If you want to talk spoilers, start a new ****ing thread.
How can you not see how discussing spoilers in any way here could lead to someone else forgetting to use tags, or accidentally saying something they shouldn't?
Regardless, in your shoes, I would have at least feigned concern with an "Oh man, that sucks" - or - you know, expressed even the slightest bit of empathy. But no, you're determined to A) be an ass, and B) defiantly have this ****ing conversation for some reason.
Also, I don't care if YOU don't know what's ultimately going to happen. I now know the identity of the killer in the book/movie, which is something I had successfully avoided for seven weeks now.
And as the author of this thread, I feel like I have some say in that regard.
If you want to talk spoilers, start a new ****ing thread.
How can you not see how discussing spoilers in any way here could lead to someone else forgetting to use tags, or accidentally saying something they shouldn't?
Regardless, in your shoes, I would have at least feigned concern with an "Oh man, that sucks" - or - you know, expressed even the slightest bit of empathy. But no, you're determined to A) be an ass, and B) defiantly have this ****ing conversation for some reason.
Also, I don't care if YOU don't know what's ultimately going to happen. I now know the identity of the killer in the book/movie, which is something I had successfully avoided for seven weeks now.
Oh man, that sucks that you clicked on a clearly tagged spoiler post, of your own volition.
And are mad that others* might* do something not tagged in the future.
Let's not forget that we are talking about a movie that grossed about as much money in 1990 as Die Hard 2, and Back to the Future 3, spawned a mini-series, and another movie.
If you want to live in a bubble, well, there is a Seinfeld episode you should consider.
A spoiler tagged post, however, is not a reason to pitch a fit.
And are mad that others* might* do something not tagged in the future.
Let's not forget that we are talking about a movie that grossed about as much money in 1990 as Die Hard 2, and Back to the Future 3, spawned a mini-series, and another movie.
If you want to live in a bubble, well, there is a Seinfeld episode you should consider.
A spoiler tagged post, however, is not a reason to pitch a fit.
I had two new notifications, one for the Twisters thread and one for the Presumed Innocent thread. I was clearly a few pixels off, but I thought I had clicked on the Twister thread first, and that your post was asking the "movie watchers," who had been giving their reactions to the Wednesday night preview showings, some spoiler-ish questions. Since i hadn't seen you give your reaction, I assumed you hadn't seen the movie yet either, so I was curious what your questions were, and I hovered over the text.
That's when I realized what thread I was actually in.
A mistake that is 100% on me.
That said, again, because I had asked multiple times in this thread to keep all spoiler discussion out of this thread, and because literally every single poster here but you had honored that request for seven weeks now, it does come across as somewhat ****ty to start doing it now, just six days before the finale, even if behind spoiler tags. Especially when doing so objectively increases the chances of OTHER posters accidentally ruining it, which you clearly don't give a **** about either.
In fact, you've gone out of your way to let us all know how bad you think this show has been at times, and how much you clearly don't care that someone besides yourself is now spoiled.
Trust me, we get it.
But personally, as over-the-top as it is, this has been one of my favorite shows of the year so far. To the point where it genuinely sucks that I made this far without knowing the identity of the killer in the book/movie, only to have it spoiled here at the one yard line. A reveal that will very likely translate to the show as well. It doesn't matter that the movie is from 1990. We've had a handshake agreement of sorts in this thread for weeks now, one you chose to disregard. Again, that's obviously your prerogative. But me getting upset about that, under these circumstances, doesn't make me some psycho, and doesn't mean that I need to take it up with my therapist, as you put in the DM you just sent me.
That's when I realized what thread I was actually in.
A mistake that is 100% on me.
That said, again, because I had asked multiple times in this thread to keep all spoiler discussion out of this thread, and because literally every single poster here but you had honored that request for seven weeks now, it does come across as somewhat ****ty to start doing it now, just six days before the finale, even if behind spoiler tags. Especially when doing so objectively increases the chances of OTHER posters accidentally ruining it, which you clearly don't give a **** about either.
In fact, you've gone out of your way to let us all know how bad you think this show has been at times, and how much you clearly don't care that someone besides yourself is now spoiled.
Trust me, we get it.
But personally, as over-the-top as it is, this has been one of my favorite shows of the year so far. To the point where it genuinely sucks that I made this far without knowing the identity of the killer in the book/movie, only to have it spoiled here at the one yard line. A reveal that will very likely translate to the show as well. It doesn't matter that the movie is from 1990. We've had a handshake agreement of sorts in this thread for weeks now, one you chose to disregard. Again, that's obviously your prerogative. But me getting upset about that, under these circumstances, doesn't make me some psycho, and doesn't mean that I need to take it up with my therapist, as you put in the DM you just sent me.
Let's be clear about 3 things:
-Nothing was spoiled outside of spoiler tags (that's why they exist)
-What OTHERS do is not on me. If you don't want any spoilers at all, even if they are tagged, maybe just stay away from the internet. But I certainly broke no rules of common decency, nor can I be condemned for what you think "others" "might" do.
-I'm not apologizing for a mistake you made. I'm sorry for you that you made it. I used spoiler tags bc I didn't want anyone to get spoiled. If I didn't care if people got spoiled, I wouldn't have used them. Because, what happened in a movie in 1990, that doesn't track with what's happening on the show (which you yourself have said you expect to be different) is not a spoiler anyway.
-Nothing was spoiled outside of spoiler tags (that's why they exist)
-What OTHERS do is not on me. If you don't want any spoilers at all, even if they are tagged, maybe just stay away from the internet. But I certainly broke no rules of common decency, nor can I be condemned for what you think "others" "might" do.
-I'm not apologizing for a mistake you made. I'm sorry for you that you made it. I used spoiler tags bc I didn't want anyone to get spoiled. If I didn't care if people got spoiled, I wouldn't have used them. Because, what happened in a movie in 1990, that doesn't track with what's happening on the show (which you yourself have said you expect to be different) is not a spoiler anyway.
20ag07 said:
Let's be clear about 3 things:
-Nothing was spoiled outside of spoiler tags (that's why they exist)
-What OTHERS do is not on me. If you don't want any spoilers at all, even if they are tagged, maybe just stay away from the internet. But I certainly broke no rules of common decency, nor can I be condemned for what you think "others" "might" do.
-I'm not apologizing for a mistake you made. I'm sorry for you that you made it. I used spoiler tags bc I didn't want anyone to get spoiled. If I didn't care if people got spoiled, I wouldn't have used them. Because, what happened in a movie in 1990, that doesn't track with what's happening on the show (which you yourself have said you expect to be different) is not a spoiler anyway.
If you're the one who STARTS a spoiler conversation, in a thread where ZERO spoiler discussion has occurred until now, even if behind spoiler tags, and that conversation leads to someone forgetting to tag something, or accidentally "blurting" something out, that's ABSOLUTELY on you for ignoring a request put in place to avoid exactly that scenario. That's... the entire point. Without you, that conversation would have never been set in motion.
We do this all the ****ing time for every big movie, and every big, adapted show (like House of the Dragon); we keep ALL SPOILERS out of the general thread - even tagged spoilers - and instead start a spoiler thread for spoiler/book conversations. Because, inevitably, when we mix tagged spoilers in the general thread, those tagged spoilers have been known to lead to people forgetting to use tags, out-in-the-open spoiler/book talk, etc.
It's common practice and common courtesy.
You are being a giant jackass
Good lord
20ag07 said:
But I certainly broke no rules of common decency, nor can I be condemned for what you think "others" "might" do.
The OP literally says in bold:
"*** PLEASE NO BOOK OR MOVIE SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD **"
I would say you're not being decent if you blatantly disregard something like that. This is not 'Nam, this is TexAgs, there are rules.
TCTS - I fully understand your frustration but I think you need to step away from the computer if you're letting random anonymous posters (with no Ag Tag at that) bother you to the point you write multi-paragraph diatribes trying to convince them to agree with your view. You provide a lot of good content here but it does seem like you take yourself and your role on the board a little too seriously.
We had multiple spoilers posted on page 3 of this thread from the book without spoiler tags.
I need to learn to stay out discussion threads on movies and shows where a prior iteration already exists.
The book readers simply always need you to know that they have read the book... over and over again. Cannot help themselves.
I need to learn to stay out discussion threads on movies and shows where a prior iteration already exists.
The book readers simply always need you to know that they have read the book... over and over again. Cannot help themselves.
I like to think that 20ag07 is just chanelling his inner Rusty Sabich by being unlikable, remorseless, and incapable of reading the room.
Show is getting a bit cliche/stale for me, and I'm ready for it to end. I know every legal drama does it to an extent, but the "let's make the courtroom as gothic and as dark as possible to enhance the drama" is on overdrive on this show. It was nearly pitch black in there in some of the scenes in this latest episode, and every meeting with the judge in her chamber is done sans lighting.
How hard is it to not post spoilers?
There are always jackasses that want to post them on every thread when there is previous source material.
Makes it really unenjoyable to read threads on tv shows based on source material.
There are always jackasses that want to post them on every thread when there is previous source material.
Makes it really unenjoyable to read threads on tv shows based on source material.
How hard is it not to click on a post with spoiler tags? (Which is why they exist)?
Not at all hard.
Not at all hard.
That would be a good enhancement - to only reveal the spoiler text after you click on it instead of just a mouseover.20ag07 said:
How hard is it not to click on a post with spoiler tags? (Which is why they exist)?
Not at all hard.
20ag07 said:
How hard is it not to click on a post with spoiler tags? (Which is why they exist)?
Not at all hard.
Mistakes happen. The OP asked for no spoilers in the thread.
I agree with him.
Daughter did it.
No elaboration neededDannyDuberstein said:
Daughter did it.
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY WHO YOU THINK DID IT.
THAT MIGHT UPSET TCTTS, WHO HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO NOT FIGURE OUT WHO DID IT.
(And also, by the way, who was the first one who posted, on page 1, that he had "seen speculation" that the show was different than the book.)
Which was a "spoiler" in and of itself. And he certainly didn't put that behind a spoiler tag.
THAT MIGHT UPSET TCTTS, WHO HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO NOT FIGURE OUT WHO DID IT.
(And also, by the way, who was the first one who posted, on page 1, that he had "seen speculation" that the show was different than the book.)
Which was a "spoiler" in and of itself. And he certainly didn't put that behind a spoiler tag.
20ag07 said:
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY WHO YOU THINK DID IT.
THAT MIGHT UPSET TCTTS, WHO HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO NOT FIGURE OUT WHO DID IT.
(And also, by the way, who was the first one who posted, on page 1, that he had "seen speculation" that the show was different than the book.)
Which was a "spoiler" in and of itself. And he certainly didn't put that behind a spoiler tag.
&ct=gDon't post spoilers on no spoiler threads. It's not rocket surgery.
"Speculation" isn't, nor has it ever been, considered a spoiler.
Because it's... speculation.
Meaning guesses, hypothesis, wonder, conjecture, thoughts, etc.
i.e. NOT confirmed.
Something we've all been doing here and on every other thread, for years and years, which no one gives a single **** about.
JFC.
Because it's... speculation.
Meaning guesses, hypothesis, wonder, conjecture, thoughts, etc.
i.e. NOT confirmed.
Something we've all been doing here and on every other thread, for years and years, which no one gives a single **** about.
JFC.
The daughter did it. Confirmed speculation. Speculative confirmation. Confirmed confirmation.
This is my guess, too.DannyDuberstein said:
Daughter did it.
No matter who did it… it feels like they'll have to do some heavy lifting to convince us it's not a total stretch, right? Like half the episode is about the autopsy guy having the hots for the victim, or something like that.
It's very concealed, I'll give them that. But maybe too concealed?
It's very concealed, I'll give them that. But maybe too concealed?
Featured Stories
See All
46:34
21h ago
9.3k
12:47
1h ago
952
Gavin Grahovac has new perspective as he recovers from surgery
by Ryan Brauninger
Players to Watch: No. 25 Texas A&M vs. Bowling Green
by Olin Buchanan
29:43
20h ago
1.6k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 4
by Matthew Dawson
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Best Seats In The House Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
TCag2007
Another Interesting Thing From Elko That Went Under The Radar Monday
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
78
Ag pride
Another Interesting Thing From Elko That Went Under The Radar Monday
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42