ok, ill try to catch it over the weekend. this is a pretty minor argument though

If I recall correctly the scene ended with Chalky getting up and leaving in anger. Still don't see how he "lightened up" on Samuel when he found out he was studying to be a doctor.

My point is more that Sopranos-esque ambiguity is >>>> than resolutions in a case like that.

While there might not have been badass for the sake of badass characters in Sopranos, there were ones that were broad and silly in other ways.

But in season three Michael K. Williams plays Ray Ray instead.

in the one after it

What one after it? He knew about him studying to become a doctor when they first met and still treated him like s**t so your point about him accepting Sammehhh after discovering he was becoming a doctor is invalid.

EDIT: unless I'm misremembering about a second meeting that happened. In that case I apologize.

There's so much at stake in this argument, I love it!

Not really. More of a test of my memory of an episode I haven't seen in a while.

Missed this post, just saw it when randal quoted it.

You've missed the point entirely. No one in here is arguing that it's impossible for one person to clear out the house, it's how Harrow chose to do it.

Ask that same special forces type person how he would go about a similar situation and listen to see if he says something similar to this: "hmmm well I'd walk in the front door, start shooting people with my sniper rifle because thats perfect for close quarters situation, then I'd go to the largest room and stand in the middle of it so everyone can shoot me from places where I can't see them and can come at me from every angle and I'd pull out my pistol and start shooting people."

If he says that then you'd have a point.

I have no problem with Harrow's scene. I doubt any of those henchmen are good shots, and in a life and death situation they would be even worse. I wonder how many times they actually shot someone, or even shot their gun. I think even if they killed someone, it would of been within hand reach.

This argument is so ****ing painful.

The scene is not at all indented to be realistic. It's incredibly stylized. Much like most of the whole damn show.

The argument you should be having here is not realistic vs not, but why people who've watched 3 seasons of the show are holding it to a standard it's never really aspired to meet.

The scene is just not attempting to appeal to the logic part of your brain. It's asking for a visceral, "OMG THIS IS AWESOME", emotionally driven response. I think it does that exceptionally well, to the point where I just wonder about a person who watches that and doesn't have that response. It requires a level of cynicism with which I am all too familiar in myself, and I can tell you that that's not a very fun way to watch TV.

Youll notice i said several times that i enjoyed the scene but it was done in a very unrealistic manner. Those two things arent necessarily one or the other. Glad to hear you agree that its unrealistic though.

I'm surprised you're the first to mention this. Even with Harrow's experience and skill with firearms it'd be a hell of a task to pull off what he did. Now take away half of his vision.

The scene was great, but people arguing that it's within the bounds of realism are kidding themselves. That was a scene out of a James Bond movie. Actually, some of you might consider that movie to be realistic too.

If we're going to be nitty, the last part of Harrow's spree kinda tilted me a bit. Guy is holding a small child as a meatshield and Harrow has him lined up for a headshot. Why even pretend you're not going to shoot his face off? Pull the damn trigger. No way that dude is going to react to the shot in time to do anything.

Style points ldo.

Agree.

I don't really know what you're talking about. Yes, the show is stylised, but the violence has been unflinching like no other show I've seen. More to the point, I can't remember being taken out of a scene that could have been awesome like that because it was so unrealistic. Nothing to do with cynicism, my gut response was to think 'isn't this guy meant to be elite? Anyone could shoot him from anywhere.'

Anyway, weren't you leading the charge with all the 'Gyp is such a cartoon cutout' stuff early on?

the proper argument is that the scene is so cheesy that is not awesome at all

I am

Violence is best when there's some intelligence behind it (see Jimmy and Capone's hit on the Greek town guys in season 1). Stylized violence is alright but usually boring when it happens randomly or to random characters. Then there's silliness, which is what the Harrow scene was. Silliness is ok if you're watching Commando, not as ok when you're watching something that purports to be realistic. For people who liked the scene, consider that if you liked the scene you would have liked it even more or just as much if it were done smarter, and then more people would have liked it too.

I just don't get how people are hating on the Harrow killing spree. If you're the kind of person who emotes for the characters when watching TV, or who is actually able to engage with a show's narrative instead of analysing everything in the context of realism, potential plot holes, artistic value or lack thereof, etc etc, then I just don't get how you could not think that was ****ing awesome, or at the very least just a good bit of fun.

I sincerely hope I never turn into someone who can watch perhaps one of the most badass characters in recent TV history take out an arsenal of weapons and gun down a bunch of gangsters and respond with "oh, now, that's just silly". Not everything has to be deep, meaningful and poetic - a lot of the best things are, but you're missing out on a lot if you can't enjoy a simple Richard Harrow killing spree IMO.

How unrealistic would the scene have to be for you to find it less than awesome? What if Harrow's bullets, instead of being direct headshots, bounced around the room first, like off the chandelier, off a serving tray, etc. and then hit their target?

You overlook that the reason the character is badass in the first place is because they built him up slowly and deliberately over time in the context of a great show, he would not have been as great a character if he was involved in highly silly killing sprees the entire time and the show was consequently less than it should have been.

Just wow at all of you nits. The scene wasn't that bad. A tad unrealistic? Sure, but it certainly was not as silly as some of you are purporting. Can we move on now?

What a set up for S4, eh?

well i'm glad that's settled...

Well, it's all about context, isn't it? If I was watching some crazy action comedy movie or something then bullets bouncing off walls might be acceptable because I'd expect unrealistic things to happen. Similarly, if I was watching a documentary about WWII I wouldn't expect bullets bouncing off things, because documentaries are supposed to be a record of what actually happened. In this case, I am aware that I am watching a stylised and, most importantly, fictionalised version of history, in which characters and situations are adapted, enhanced and created anew for the sole purpose of audience enjoyment.

Thus, I don't expect every scene to represent reality, and as long as nothing happens that defies the context of the show, I'm perfectly okay with it. I mean, ****, the whole 'Nucky going on the run and hiding out at Chalky's house while Rosetti comes to visit' thing from last episode was pretty ****ing unlikely to happen in real life but people had no problem with it because it was done for dramatic effect. People are just jumping on that scene as a chance to nit it up because the people who aren't nits really liked it, and nits like to **** all over that obviously. I don't get why people expect so much realism, I really don't.

Why do you think they spent time building him up?!? Were you expecting them to just never pay it off, and never give the audience any enjoyment out of the fact that he's a badass? That's how stories work, you build up someone's character in a particular way and then you pay that off with events that develop that character and are interesting to watch. Yes, it would have been stupid if he was just killing people from the beginning and not doing anything else, but it would have been equally stupid if Nucky had married Margaret in season 1 episode 1, or if Owen had died in his first episode, or if Gyp had just immediately invaded AC and taken over.

If you're going to build something up that the audience enjoys, you can't just not pay it off. Yes, you can't just make someone badass from the beginning for no reason (see Michonne from The Walking Dead), but if you put time and effort into making something work, you have to actually do it justice, particularly in season finales where people expect fireworks. Again, people have really weird expectations.

You acknowledge that some level of realism is neccessary, then rant for 3 more paragraphs because other peoples expectations of realism in BWE don't exactly match yours. All people are saying is that the seen could have been done in an equally awesome way while paying greater homage to the characters backstory and maintaining the level of realism purported by this show since its inception.

It should also be noted that its the defenders of this scene who seem most perturbed by this debate. I think it has something to do with the fact that a good portion of BWE's audience came in looking for nothing but Prohibition-era sex and violence and were disappointed to discover that an attempt at story and art might be made instead. They stuck around anyway and finally got their payoff, and are absolutely furious that anyone might cheapen it by pointing out how out of context it is compared to the tone of the rest of the show (which they never really liked, anyway).