SkavauVince Gilligan says he's no longer sure what do with the [device] from the end of 'Pluribus' first season, and he isn't sure when season two is coming, either
watsonWell, that’s disappointing. I enjoyed the first season, but the fact that he has no plan doesn’t sound good for future episodes.
To be fair he had no plan before he wrote season 1 either, and look how that turned out.
If you think that was all filler, then we must have watched different shows
Pretty sure I watched “Pluribus”. Not sure what you were watching.
…substack.com/…/pluribus-just-hit-the-wall-why-th…
“But there is a fine line between portraying aimlessness and actually being aimless as a storyteller. Pluribus crossed that line this week. Nothing pushed the story forward. We didn’t learn anything new about Carol’s internal state that we couldn’t have gleaned from a five-minute sequence. Instead, we got forty minutes of wandering that felt less like character development and more like the writers needing to stretch the runtime before the finale.”
forbes.com/…/pluribus-season-1-finale-review/
“My frustration with Pluribus stems largely from two major problems. First, the pacing and repetitiveness. Second, the stretched-thin plot. This show’s story is like too little butter spread over too much bread.”
It’s fine if that’s your opinion. Slow pacing isn’t for everyone. I fully enjoyed being forced to experience the loneliness and emptyness that Carol was experiencing. It makes later interactions that she has more meaningful and helps us process how her mind is working.
I think you make a good point but the pace is slower than necessary to achieve these artistic benefits. It’s an overall detriment to the show when you keep squeezing a method that has no juice left. Emotional impact received, then sank in, then 20 more minutes on top? A bit too far I think. Narrative devices have diminishing returns, they pushed it so far that it looks like incompetence.