FTA-TV Succession

[Seeds]

He is a competent psychopath - Kendall hasn't the competency.

Disagree. During the first season kendall was regularly making good calls. plus it was revealed in the last couple of episodes that Mattson was a lot less competent then what we thought he was. He had little involvement in the tech that made his company and he had been lying to the market.

 

[Seeds]

Ultimately I think boiling Shiv's rationale down to 'childishness' is grossly oversimplifying her motivation and rationale. And while there's a myriad of ways to debate why she did what she did, that's the worst.

Just cos you dont want it to be that way for her character doesnt make it so.

In the end she let her childish intuitions guide her decision. Kendall couldnt have it if she couldnt. Her stated reasoning was post hoc rationalisation.

she and roman were very similar. Not very bright but they couldnt recognise it.

 

[SM]

Just cos you dont want it to be that way for her character doesnt make it so.

In the end she let her childish intuitions guide her decision. Kendall couldnt have it if she couldnt. Her stated reasoning was post hoc rationalisation.

she and roman were very similar. Not very bright but they couldnt recognise it.

It had nothing to do with her not getting it, how is that the conclusion you draw?

 

[blackshadow]

Disagree

Just cos you dont want it to be that way for her character doesnt make it so.

In the end she let her childish intuitions guide her decision. Kendall couldnt have it if she couldnt. Her stated reasoning was post hoc rationalisation.

she and roman were very similar. Not very bright but they couldnt recognise it..

Disagree

Shiv is the only one of the siblings who had some success away from the sheltered workshop of Waystar Roy.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Has there been any talk of spin off shows? It would be fun to see Logan as a younger man.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Has there been any talk of spin off shows? It would be fun to see Logan as a younger man.

No offence, but that sounds like a horrible idea!

 

[No Quarter]

Where does this show now sit on your list of all time shows?

Probably sits firmly with Band of Brothers and Seinfeld for me then daylight

Masterful show that ended on its finest moment

Just behind Mad Men for mine, MM being my #1

 

[No Quarter]

Can definitely draw many conclusions as to why she made her decision but for me, stripping it down, it feels like she simply did it because if she couldn't be CEO, none of the 3 could.

Isn't it amazing, squabbling over something like this where the alternative means a $2b handshake. Life shattering.

 

[SM]

Can definitely draw many conclusions as to why she made her decision but for me, stripping it down, it feels like she simply did it because if she couldn't be CEO, none of the 3 could.

Isn't it amazing, squabbling over something like this where the alternative means a $2b handshake. Life shattering.

I don't know how people keep coming away with this bad take.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I dunno you seem to have taken a lot of offence to a pretty harmless comment.

It grows brother when you like a discussion and opinion and you get one liners with nothing to do with the subject.

Now offence taking I know is a huge fad these days, with some weird people need to correct, or take offence for someone else ??

I just get angry because the c***s have nothing to say about the subject. So SM: Leave it at that, if a discussion comes up maybe just talk about the subject.
I don't know but I genuinly look for other opinions and sometimes some on here give them and very well they do it. Its only those
who actully have absolutely nothing to add , that is not taking offence ,it is a little anger I suppose, i'm just answering and asking someone
to piss off, if they have nothing to say on the comment I make.
So really why would the likes of these people even bother. Shit I can't even remember myself what the subject was about. Aaah yes a TV show.
Any way take it easy this is finished.

 

[SM]

It grows brother when you like a discussion and opinion and you get one liners with nothing to do with the subject.

Now offence taking I know is a huge fad these days, with some weird people need to correct, or take offence for someone else ??

I just get angry because the c***s have nothing to say about the subject. So SM: Leave it at that, if a discussion comes up maybe just talk about the subject.
I don't know but I genuinly look for other opinions and sometimes some on here give them and very well they do it. Its only those
who actully have absolutely nothing to add , that is not taking offence ,it is a little anger I suppose, i'm just answering and asking someone
to piss off, if they have nothing to say on the comment I make.
So really why would the likes of these people even bother. s**t I can't even remember myself what the subject was about. Aaah yes a TV show.
Any way take it easy this is finished.

If you read up I actually have no issue discussing the subject and have been doing it. You'll also see a lot of people found my comment funny. It wasn't meant to cause offence but clearly it has so I apologise for hurting your feelings.

 

[JoondalupJ]

The last episode was exactly how it should have been. Shiv with Tom still in love? But Shiv is also still got her connection
to the new US CEO. And up the duff to boot a connection all right!!! Could hold Tommy.

The little hand hold of "I got you" in the limo near end. could mean anything , (I am in control now Shiv, or we can make it?)

She's safe because Tom may still love her, I think he does, but his ruthlessness and business smarts have dominated
at last, he is not in jail, but in the top job.

Puts him in a whole different category to the "family" . And of course we'll never know, but, Greg ???? He just still may
have an ace up his sleeve about Toms earlier activities, and Tommy was going to go down the river for Logan Roy? yes?

Shiv will survive.

Kendal has a black cloud over him even though he got away with the bit at the bridge! Boy in the river!

Losing THE GAME, he either in his own mind was finished and wandering in desolation or he was beginning to see and was finally
gaining realisation that this problem could come back, alluded to, by Roman.
It could come back and bite him one day.

Or maybe he realised after his spitting the dummy trying to persuade the siblings then the board, he was just not fit for it.

Roman on the outer, little smart-man didn't know who he was. Weak as piss inside sometimes uninformed, but loved his
old man. The rest couldn't give a shit.
I think he was closer to mum as well?
But broken and totally unfocused on any future Even with a fat pay out , he could end up jumping off
a bridge himself.

Kendal too, for that matter, Logan Roy really was a c???

Brilliant 4 seasons, hard one to follow, that is as good.
What do you reckon? shows over no more. Capped and finished.
Describe the future for the three. That'd be a good. exercise .

 

[No Quarter]

I don't know how people keep coming away with this bad take.

Well if a collective of people keep jumping to this conclusion it must have some merit.

Her behaviour after early S2 when Logan told her he wanted her to succeed, then how she carried on around the Pierce deal and how they were keeping quiet on the successor.

So very many of her behaviours throughout the seasons showed she thought she was far above where she really was in the standings, and giving it to Kendall was a complete snub to her, regardless of whether he was or was not truly capable of taking the position.

 

[SM]

Well if a collective of people keep jumping to this conclusion it must have some merit.

Her behaviour after early S2 when Logan told her he wanted her to succeed, then how she carried on around the Pierce deal and how they were keeping quiet on the successor.

So very many of her behaviours throughout the seasons showed she thought she was far above where she really was in the standings, and giving it to Kendall was a complete snub to her, regardless of whether he was or was not truly capable of taking the position.

It's two people in this thread that I've seen, not sure that means it has merit when it's so clearly wrong.

 

[No Quarter]

So clearly?

I mean, unless someone comes out and actually confirms what she was thinking, it's all speculation..

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I too thought that a big part (but certainly not all) of Shiv turning against Kendall was that she didn't want him to beat her. When the three of them were in the glass walled office, it showed all of them reverting to their childhood - Roman's petulance and verbally lashing out, Kendall's "first-born" entitlement and physically lashing out and Shiv's vindictiveness. If that scene had been played by literal children, it would've been exactly the same.

 

[SM]

I too thought that a big part (but certainly not all) of Shiv turning against Kendall was that she didn't want him to beat her. When the three of them were in the glass walled office, it showed all of them reverting to their childhood - Roman's petulance and verbally lashing out, Kendall's "first-born" entitlement and physically lashing out and Shiv's vindictiveness. If that scene had been played by literal children, it would've been exactly the same.

In what element of that conversation was Shiv demonstrating a want to have it herself, rather than Ken just purely not getting it?

I just fail to see at any point in any of those scenes post the 'anointing the King' scene Shiv showing any desire to have it for herself? That whole sequence where she is betrayed by Maatsen and then comes to terms with Ken being the 'best choice' of the three of them was her letting go of any desire for it herself.

I just scratch my head at any interpretation that she was being in any way childish at the board meeting, or petulant in not getting it herself.

 

[Alesana]

It's two people in this thread that I've seen, not sure that means it has merit when it's so clearly wrong.

There is no 'wrong'. It's open to interpretation. I also think Shiv tanked the vote more so out of spite. She got a few glimpses of life with Kendall back in the big chair and as she said, couldn't stomach it. She knew going against Ken would effectively put Tom in the chair, which would arguably be better for her, and while Tom may even be a better CEO, I don't think any of her decision making was based on what's best for the company.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

In what element of that conversation was Shiv demonstrating a want to have it herself, rather than Ken just purely not getting it?

I just fail to see at any point in any of those scenes post the 'anointing the King' scene Shiv showing any desire to have it for herself? That whole sequence where she is betrayed by Maatsen and then comes to terms with Ken being the 'best choice' of the three of them was her letting go of any desire for it herself.

I just scratch my head at any interpretation that she was being in any way childish at the board meeting, or petulant in not getting it herself.

What you saw as her letting go any desire for it herself, I saw as her pragmatism that she wasn't going to get the board's support if they chose her, so better to go with Kendall and screw over Tom and Mattson. I don't think she ever gave up her desire to be the CEO and when she got to physically see Ken in the chair, her previous pragmatism disintegrated.

While you're scratching your head at me, I'm scratching my head at the thought of a lifetime of desire simply evaporating in a less than 24 hour period!

 

[revo333]

4 episodes into season 4 and it's been the best stretch of the show for me.

I'll try and finish off the season in the next few days as yesterday and I came across how the season ends for one character which left me a little flat as it probably gives away the ending for a few other characters as well.

But my major concern is...

Spoiler

I hope they didn't kill Logan off too quickly in the season and the story ends up lagging for the remaining 5 episodes

 

[SM]

What you saw as her letting go any desire for it herself, I saw as her pragmatism that she wasn't going to get the board's support if they chose her, so better to go with Kendall and screw over Tom and Mattson. I don't think she ever gave up her desire to be the CEO and when she got to physically see Ken in the chair, her previous pragmatism disintegrated.

While you're scratching your head at me, I'm scratching my head at the thought of a lifetime of desire simply evaporating in a less than 24 hour period!

Right.. and then what changed her mind back the other way all of sudden? What, she suddenly realised she was annoyed at Ken and wanted it and had a tantrum? It just doesn't track in the slightest. What changed was Katarina speaking to her about Hugo, what changed was seeing Ken behind the desk and the way he spoke, and what changed was him trying to whitewash the death of the waiter. All factors that made her decide he really was the worse option than Mattson not that she should get it and if she can't have it Ken shouldn't either.

You can scratch away all you want but whether it did or didn't, her decision on the day did nothing to influence her desire anyway. Even with Tom as the CEO, they have such a frosty relationship and the attempted reparation with him is as much about giving her child their father than anything else. Her reconciliation with him was always more about mending their marriage than any sort of 'marriage of convenience' to rule with him.

 

[No Quarter]

Shiv continually questioned if anyone were better suited to running the company than her. In a moment of frustration with how things were panning out, she relented to accepting Ken thinking it was the right thing to do.

Then she backflipped, reverting to the notion that Ken was in fact not the right person to lead no matter the circumstance, and particularly not ahead of her. She knew at this point any challenge for herself would be fruitless, so out of spite, decides to vote in favour of the sale.

I don't think this is an outrageous theory, be it right or wrong.

 

[No Quarter]

 

[SM]

Shiv continually questioned if anyone were better suited to running the company than her. In a moment of frustration with how things were panning out, she relented to accepting Ken thinking it was the right thing to do.

Then she backflipped, reverting to the notion that Ken was in fact not the right person to lead no matter the circumstance, and particularly not ahead of her. She knew at this point any challenge for herself would be fruitless, so out of spite, decides to vote in favour of the sale.

I don't think this is an outrageous theory, be it right or wrong.

It's the 'out of spite' element that I completely refute. It had nothing spiteful in it, and reducing her actions to emotional is verging on sexist, just IMO. It had nothing emotional in it, and was clearly well reasoned and rationaled.

 

[No Quarter]

But you're kinda implying that reason and rationale was a hallmark of this show when in fact it was immaturity for the 3 children for the most part.