My left nut will remain happily in it's Fruit of the Loom home.
:)

ha :p

I, for one, am considered "conservative". I vote mostly Republican. I love the show, I'm pro-legalization, so where do I collect that left nut at? :D

I'm a pro-legalization conservative that loves this show as well. Let him hold onto that left nut and be more careful about how he wagers it in the future :D

Agreed that the writers need to quit with the continual political digs. I get enough of that from the news media, Hollywood and the entertainment community.

I really don't see what one's political persuasion has to do with whether they would enjoy the show. It is fiction after all. There are all sorts of things depicted in movies (e.g. murder and other crimes) that 99.9% of the population wouldn't condone, but that doesn't prevent them from enjoying those movies.

I really don't see what one's political persuasion has to do with whether they would enjoy the show. It is fiction after all. There are all sorts of things depicted in movies (e.g. murder and other crimes) that 99.9% of the population wouldn't condone, but that doesn't prevent them from enjoying those movies.

True...but when you see the murders and other violent acts that you refer to on television and the movies, the purpose of the act isn't to make you feel like a goober for not agreeing with the activity in question.

True...but when you see the murders and other violent acts that you refer to on television and the movies, the purpose of the act isn't to make you feel like a goober for not agreeing with the activity in question.

What, somebody holding a gun to your head? You don't have to agree with any activity mentioned in the show. I don't feel gooberish because I don't sell weed. If you feel like a goober, well, that's on you peanut. ;)

I really don't see what one's political persuasion has to do with whether they would enjoy the show. It is fiction after all. There are all sorts of things depicted in movies (e.g. murder and other crimes) that 99.9% of the population wouldn't condone, but that doesn't prevent them from enjoying those movies.

I don't think its so much whether you agree or disagree with the politics that the creators of the show obviously endorse, but the constant attempts to inform their audience just how much to the left they swing.

Would this scene from last week have played any differently if the character of Silas was wearing a shirt that didn't bash Bush?

http://img147.imagevenue.com/loc417/th_48287_PDVD_026_122_417lo.JPG (http://img147.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=48287_PDVD_026_122_417lo.JPG)

I don't think its so much whether you agree or disagree with the politics that the creators of the show obviously endorse, but the constant attempts to inform their audience just how uch to the left they swing.

Would this scene from last week have played any differently if the character of Silas was wearing a shirt that didn't bash Bush?

http://img147.imagevenue.com/loc417/th_48287_PDVD_026_122_417lo.JPG (http://img147.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=48287_PDVD_026_122_417lo.JPG)
I wasn't really referring to the recent shows where there have been some ham-handed political "messages". I find those annoying as well. There were some earlier posts that seemed to imply that conservatives most likely wouldn't watch or enjoy this show anyway because of its central theme (drug dealing), and that's what I was disagreeing with.

I'm a moderate Independent, so nothing really hurts, but I think if I were a Conservative, the constant political jabs would start to annoy me. When it's too hamfisted, it does have an effect.

I love Battlestar Galactica, but recently they were really laying on analogies to Iraq etc so thickly that at times it sort of took me out of the show. I didn't piss me off, it just made my mind kind of ponder the politics of the real world for a moment, instead of paying attention to the show. I imagine some of Weeds political jabs could have the same effect on many people.
It's fine when it subtle, not so good when it's silly; like having the school kids launch into a political diatribe that's beyond their years.

Anyone still digging this show. Last nights episode was pretty good and I am looking forward to next weeks confrontation. What I like about this show is I can never figure out the direction it's taking. The DEA dude seems pissed! She did F him over somewhat but I don't think that was her intentions from the beginning.

I missed the episode with Snoop (maybe a good thing). As far as ragging on Bush I think it's a sign of the times. Considering there is an election in a couple of weeks I can understand the temptation of adding jabs and body blows to the party that holds all three branches of government. Kids grow up quick these days with the internet and everything (when your dad dies as a kid you can't help but grow up quick). After all he is giving his graduation speech for his school so he is no idiot.Eric

...Considering there is an election in a couple of weeks I can understand the temptation of adding jabs and body blows to the party that holds all three branches of government....

Why do you think the creators of this show would be tempted to jab and throw body blows at that political party?

Although the last two episodes have started to show that life for people involved in Nancy's industry isn't as care-free, harmless, and victimless as the de-criminalization people would like us all to think. Especially last night when Nancy finally utters about herself, "Worst Mother ever." Gee, ya think?

Why do you think the creators of this show would be tempted to jab and throw body blows at that political party?

Although the last two episodes have started to show that life for people involved in Nancy's industry isn't as care-free, harmless, and victimless as the de-criminalization people would like us all to think. Especially last night when Nancy finally utters about herself, "Worst Mother ever." Gee, ya think?


From all the "jabs" and "body blows" it is obvious the creators of the show don't like the way the people in charge are running the country. It is their patriotic duty to speak out IMO.


If weed was de-criminalized she wouldn't do what she is doing because it wouldn't be profitable. It is the criminalization that creates the chaos.

(edited because I can't spell)

If weed was de-criminalized she wouldn't do what she is doing because it wouldn't be profitable. It is the criminalization that creates the chaos.

(edited because I can't spell)
Very true, here in California the price per pound has already dropped through the floor going down as much 50-60% just in the last 3 years. The relaxed laws here have helped to create a glut of the stuff, especially at this time of the year.

I wasn't really referring to the recent shows where there have been some ham-handed political "messages". I find those annoying as well.

I would of thought their choice of music for the opening of Weeds would of been enough to know exactly where the shows politics are. It's practically a socialist theme song.

If you want an example of a bizarre political message it was in the last episode of Dexter when they are in the costume shop he says something about everyone wearing masks and monsters and right on cue when he says monster they show a george bush mask.

Tonight is the last episode of the season.

Anyone know if a third season has already been decided on?

Not yet.

These seasons are too short! I wish cable would set at least 18 episodes as a typical run.
'Weeds' is just hitting it's stride this season with a real interesting point in character growth: is Nancy going too far, going beyond just providing for her family? How far will the DEA agent go before he considers what he is doing to be dereliction of duty? Conrad's relationship with Nancy is coming into focus as well.
Almost like a theme this season, at what point do you stop 'playing the role' and become something you never meant to be?

[QUOTE=cocoon]I would of thought their choice of music for the opening of Weeds would of been enough to know exactly where the shows politics are. It's practically a socialist theme song.


QUOTE]

I think the theme song is more of a commentary on how homogenized this society has become.

I didn't realize this was the last episode of the season. Looking forward to it tonight and hopefully next season.Eric

Wow ... great season ender. "See what happens next in season 3 ... (unspecified date in) 2007."

30 min was too short for a season ender...still enjoyable. The graduation audience was memorable.

What a great cliffhanger for next season!

I think the theme song is more of a commentary on how homogenized this society has become.

That's what everyone thinks.

That's what everyone thinks.

Well, almost everyone... :rolleyes:

I would of thought their choice of music for the opening of Weeds would of been enough to know exactly where the shows politics are. It's practically a socialist theme song.

Nancy's Son: It's like we're on a plane. A muthaf*ck*n plane full of muthaf*ck*n snakes". :D That graduation scene was funny as hell.

I laughed my ass off when Kevin Nealon was holding the guy down with a loogie dangling over his face. :D

One of the best seasons of any show in the last years. Thank God for cable TV!

And the season finale can be the series finale if you think about it. That'll be a really good series finale for the show. I know that a lot of people would want to know what happens next, but the way the show works that'll be a really good series finale. I know that won't happen, Weeds will receive more awards and Showtime will pay for another season.

I just can't imagine how they are gonna solve everything. It they can do it right, Season 3 should be almost as good as season 2.

And the season finale can be the series finale if you think about it. That'll be a really good series finale for the show. I know that a lot of people would want to know what happens next, but the way the show works that'll be a really good series finale....

I just can't imagine how they are gonna solve everything. It they can do it right, Season 3 should be almost as good as season 2.
When this season started I commented here on how I thought the show lost its direction and the writers were putting themselves in an impossible position. An implosion was inevitable. Well I think the train finally derailed and they left us with this preposterous train wreck.

I agree that there were a couple of hilarious moments last night but I prefer to see a real ending to a story. If the show doesn’t get renewed I feel that they should still give us a proper ending even if that ending is just a few minutes tagged on to this anxious cliff hanger. And should the show be renewed, I look forward to seeing how the writers get the train back on the tracks.

I just hope the cops don't end up with that trunk full of MILF weed! :D

I definitely liked Season 1 much better than this year. I enjoy the show, but I can't seem to stand her kids anymore this year. Even though they recently lost their father, they are the most obnoxious, irritating kids around. The graduation speech seemed forced and somewhat predictable to me. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but the brilliance of the first season to me was to see how this single mom "dealt" with losing her husband and having to sell weed, along with comedy of all the quirky friends and characters. I don't see the appeal as much this year. I can't put my finger on why, but I liked it less and less each episode this year ..

It certainly stopped being funny and got very dark when they killed the cop.

It certainly stopped being funny and got very dark when they killed the cop.

We never actually saw him dead, did we? I wouldn't be surprised if he's still around next year.

I definitely liked Season 1 much better than this year. I enjoy the show, but I can't seem to stand her kids anymore this year. Even though they recently lost their father, they are the most obnoxious, irritating kids around. The graduation speech seemed forced and somewhat predictable to me. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but the brilliance of the first season to me was to see how this single mom "dealt" with losing her husband and having to sell weed, along with comedy of all the quirky friends and characters. I don't see the appeal as much this year. I can't put my finger on why, but I liked it less and less each episode this year ..

The first season had some "heavy" scenes to balance out the comedy. It made me care more for the characters.

Although Weeds has gone from a comedy/drama to a screwball comedy, I still dig it.

We never actually saw him dead, did we? I wouldn't be surprised if he's still around next year.I thought they purposely didn’t show him dead or being killed because it is “supposed to be” a comedy. I recall that one of the “killers” did have blood on his shirt. :cool:

Why should we have any closure with the cop. We don’t have it with any of the other characters. :rolleyes:
Like I said- it was a train wreck.

Some weeks ago I posted here that I had had enough of Weeds and would not be watching any more episodes, In the event, I lied.

After I posted, I told my daughter that I was through with Weeds but she said, “Oh, you have to keep watching it because I don’t know anybody else who does and I need for you to watch so that I will have somebody to talk to about it.” So I did.

I think I was right the first time. Although there were some laughs along the way, the show’s creative people’s streak of nihilism just kept getting longer and wider until they ran out of ideas for situations that were both antisocial and funny.

The murder of the DEA husband in the final episode was the last straw for me. The show simply lost sight of what it was and, in an attempt to keep topping itself with more and more outrageous situations, stopped being funny and was merely shocking.

I think the show started taking its “Little Boxes” anthem too seriously and bought into the song’s premise that successful people are “squares.” Class envy has its limits and Weeds exceeded them, it seems to me. And I had thought that at this late date only jailbirds and other losers thought that way. Silly me.

The first season had some "heavy" scenes to balance out the comedy. It made me care more for the characters.

Although Weeds has gone from a comedy/drama to a screwball comedy, I still dig it.


Maybe this is part of the problem for me. I certainly don't take it too seriously, but for some reason I enjoyed it more when it was a light drama wih some comedy (Season 1), than now when it seems more of a comedy with a little drama thrown in. Some of the supposedly really funny scenes just seem predictable and abrasive now (the snotty kid's grad speech, etc).

The murder of the DEA husband in the final episode was the last straw for me. The show simply lost sight of what it was and, in an attempt to keep topping itself with more and more outrageous situations, stopped being funny and was merely shocking..

... or perhaps just more realistic. What happens when Suburban Mom steps into the world of gangsters and "big time" drug dealers? Did we really expect it all to turn out for the best? ;)

Yeah, it became sort of inevitable after awhile, didn’t it? The show couldn’t decide whether it wanted to keep on being a comedy. It all seemed like a waste to me because I think both Mary Louise Parker and Elizabeth Perkins are appealing and funny. Anyway, I suspect that my daughter will browbeat me into watching next season – if there is a next season.

I would be surprised if the DEA agent is dead, it would seem way too dark a turn for this show. I don't want to pile it on, but it seems like they rushed her rise to power, peak, and then fall too much. It might have been nice to have watched the grow operation slowly build up over the course of the season, minus the involvment of the Feds. Maybe start next season off with the her starting to get big and then getting DEA attention.

I know it's a cliffhanger, but logically the series should be over. This level of intensity (with or without the DEA agent's death) would pretty much end her growing project at the very least, drive her back to baking 'goods' for the neighborhood potheads.

I would be surprised if the DEA agent is dead, it would seem way too dark a turn for this show.
. . .

I agree that the DEA agent boyfriend may be alive. Indeed, I hope so. But I can’t sort out how the writers might pull that off. Still, this is sitcom TV, where ANYTHING is possible. :)

Yeah, it became sort of inevitable after awhile, didn’t it? The show couldn’t decide whether it wanted to keep on being a comedy. It all seemed like a waste to me because I think both Mary Louise Parker and Elizabeth Perkins are appealing and funny. Anyway, I suspect that my daughter will browbeat me into watching next season – if there is a next season.

There will be a next season. They announced it at the end of the season finale.

As to the DEA boyfriend/husband's death, they established that he's not an upstanding moral character. He was willing right off the bat to bend the law for sex, and his willingness to commit even more serious crime made his potential death not the cut-and-dried tragedy it would be if he was painted to be a true-blue white-hat wearing good guy. He has/had his moral ambiguities just like everyone else on the show. Everyone lives in a shade of gray. And that's why I tend to think he's not merely dead, but really, really dead (with apologies to the munchkins).

I'm not going to jump on the hate-uhs bandwagon. I still think the show is terribly funny and Andy is one of the wittiest creations on the tube right now. The writers are so clever; every time we think they've blown things up so far the story can't possibly have anywhere else to go, they take it in an entirely unexpected direction, and manage to wring more laughs out every step of the way. That, gentlemen, is genius. I love this show. :)

As to the DEA boyfriend/husband's death, they established that he's not an upstanding moral character. He was willing right off the bat to bend the law for sex, and his willingness to commit even more serious crime made his potential death not the cut-and-dried tragedy it would be if he was painted to be a true-blue white-hat wearing good guy. He has/had his moral ambiguities just like everyone else on the show. Everyone lives in a shade of gray. And that's why I tend to think he's not merely dead, but really, really dead (with apologies to the munchkins). Yeah, I believe he’s dead. I agree with your assumptions, there was not much love for his character so his death is not as tragic.

The writers are so clever; every time we think they've blown things up so far the story can't possibly have anywhere else to go, they take it in an entirely unexpected direction, and manage to wring more laughs out every step of the way. That, gentlemen, is genius. I love this show. :) Genius is coming up with E equals MC squared not E equals. :D
I’ll reserve my accolades for the writers if and when they fix this mess.
It’s a lot easier to break a (insert analogy here) time piece than it is to make one. :cool:

There's an interview with the show creator in the tvguide web site. He basically confirms that the cop is dead. For me it seems they still don't decide what are they going to do next with the show.

They have a year to think about it. :p

It certainly stopped being funny and got very dark when they killed the cop.

not only that, but it's the partner who put the hit on him. that changed the tenor of the show completely.

I hope the cop isn't dead, but I don't know how they'll pull that off

not only that, but it's the partner who put the hit on him. that changed the tenor of the show completely.

I believe it was Heylia who put the hit on him. She got pretty pissed when he tried to bust her and figured he'd probably keep coming after her. So, she took care of him.

I hope the cop isn't dead, but I don't know how they'll pull that off

He's dead, Jim.

TV Notebook
Showtime Rolls More Weeds
By John Eggerton Broadcasting & Cable 11/16/2006

Calling it the centerpiece of its comedy strategy for the near future, cable net Showtime has given a green light to 15 new episodes of critically acclaimed Weeds.

Weeds, Showtime's most-watched comedy, is about a pot-selling suburban mom, played by Emmy-winner Mary-Louise Parker.

The show, which resumes production in the spring for a summer premiere of its third season, is produced by Lionsgate, in association with Tilted productions.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6392127

Is this show in HD? I rented the Season 1 DVD and it was 4:3.

Is this show in HD? I rented the Season 1 DVD and it was 4:3.

Its been HD for season 1 and 2. For some unknown reason they released season 1 DVD in 4x3 format.

Its been HD for season 1 and 2. For some unknown reason they released season 1 DVD in 4x3 format.

Wow, I didn't think show this recent would be released on pan and scan for DVD. Terrible decision. The PQ on the DVD is garbage but I liked the first episode anyway.

When this season started I commented here on how I thought the show lost its direction and the writers were putting themselves in an impossible position. An implosion was inevitable. Well I think the train finally derailed and they left us with this preposterous train wreck.

I agree that there were a couple of hilarious moments last night but I prefer to see a real ending to a story. If the show doesn’t get renewed I feel that they should still give us a proper ending even if that ending is just a few minutes tagged on to this anxious cliff hanger. And should the show be renewed, I look forward to seeing how the writers get the train back on the tracks.
I agree 100%. Very well put.

Season One brought us one of the most clever and charming television series ever. And then the writers got too cocky or full of themselves (don't mention Lost here, please). It was almost as if the budget ran out early and the writers and director had to do a mad scramble to finish things up at the end of season 2.

I was very disappointed, but that's when I discovered Dexter. Cheers!

Well I think tonights episode will start off at the same point in the last season.
Looking forward to it.

The masterbation scene was wild. ha

I liked how the season started off.

The masterbation scene was wild. ha

.

"We took too many drugs" "yeah" that was hilarious

I just watched the pilot episode (great name for the show, "You Can't Miss the Bear!") off the bluray disc I rented from Netflix. I was disappointed. I knew the plotline centered on a pot-dealing suburbanite, but I felt like the show was trying too hard to poke fingers in the eyes of those who might have some affinity for certain social mores that others find prudish or outmoded. Am I supposed to empathize with the lead? She expresses consternation over the thought of a fellow dealer selling to pre-teens, but she supplied him the drugs. That makes her character a "tough sell" to this potential audience member. And the flaws in most of the other characters were obviously delibrately outrageous for the sake of humor, but seemed too much like bad charicatures to me. Do they settle into a storyline, or keep going for shock-value over substance?

If you have the disc, then watch a couple of more episodes before making your mind up. Most shows you can't call by simply watching just the pilot. And yes, there is a storyline.

I just watched the pilot episode (great name for the show, "You Can't Miss the Bear!") off the bluray disc I rented from Netflix. I was disappointed. I knew the plotline centered on a pot-dealing suburbanite, but I felt like the show was trying too hard to poke fingers in the eyes of those who might have some affinity for certain social mores that others find prudish or outmoded. Am I supposed to empathize with the lead? She expresses consternation over the thought of a fellow dealer selling to pre-teens, but she supplied him the drugs. That makes her character a "tough sell" to this potential audience member. And the flaws in most of the other characters were obviously delibrately outrageous for the sake of humor, but seemed too much like bad charicatures to me. Do they settle into a storyline, or keep going for shock-value over substance?

The show is a satire. Yes, it deliberately "pokes fingers" in the eyes of a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum. Most won't be offended, but a certain subset will (the ones that always are). It does it for laughs, the way great comedies have always done. 'All in the Family' would seem tame today, for sure, but 'Weeds' is cutting edge, 21st century comedy in its topicality. And yes, there are some wild storylines and great plot twists. The show is a lot more than mere shock value.

I just watched the pilot episode (great name for the show, "You Can't Miss the Bear!") off the bluray disc I rented from Netflix. I was disappointed. I knew the plotline centered on a pot-dealing suburbanite, but I felt like the show was trying too hard to poke fingers in the eyes of those who might have some affinity for certain social mores that others find prudish or outmoded. Am I supposed to empathize with the lead? She expresses consternation over the thought of a fellow dealer selling to pre-teens, but she supplied him the drugs. That makes her character a "tough sell" to this potential audience member. And the flaws in most of the other characters were obviously delibrately outrageous for the sake of humor, but seemed too much like bad charicatures to me. Do they settle into a storyline, or keep going for shock-value over substance?

I think this is a great show but it may not be for you. Unless you can relate to the Celia character.

Great ep, I hadn't realized how much I had missed Weeds until seeing this episode last night, I thought Mary-Louise Parker was in fine form in this episode. Zooey Deschanel was great as a certifiable, but loveable, nutcase from hell. :D

Excellent. They picked right up and carried on what they had going the first two seasons.

The show is a satire. ... there are some wild storylines and great plot twists. The show is a lot more than mere shock value.
Okay, archiguy. I'll give it a chance. I can see the rich potential for satirical humor in the outrageous scenario, but I'm not likely to stick with it if they expect me to think the lead character is justified somehow in her criminal behavior, no matter how cute and clever she is.

Okay, archiguy. I'll give it a chance. I can see the rich potential for satirical humor in the outrageous scenario, but I'm not likely to stick with it if they expect me to think the lead character is justified somehow in her criminal behavior, no matter how cute and clever she is.

They don't expect anything from you except laughter. If your conservative personal views prevent you from appreciating the humor derived from the show's premise, then that's on you. It's certainly not their fault if you choose to apply your personal views to their work and find it not to your liking.

I just watched the pilot episode (great name for the show, "You Can't Miss the Bear!") off the bluray disc I rented from Netflix. I was disappointed. I knew the plotline centered on a pot-dealing suburbanite, but I felt like the show was trying too hard to poke fingers in the eyes of those who might have some affinity for certain social mores that others find prudish or outmoded. Am I supposed to empathize with the lead? She expresses consternation over the thought of a fellow dealer selling to pre-teens, but she supplied him the drugs. That makes her character a "tough sell" to this potential audience member. And the flaws in most of the other characters were obviously delibrately outrageous for the sake of humor, but seemed too much like bad charicatures to me. Do they settle into a storyline, or keep going for shock-value over substance?
It should come as no surprise that Weeds has a Left wing, counterculture slant. All you have to do is listen to the words of its theme song, “Little Boxes,” to learn all you need to know. According to the song, all the folks who have professional degrees and live in nice neighborhoods are somehow all alike. The composer of the song, Malvina Reynolds, was a second generation socialist and political activist. I’ve never worried much about that, though, because, in my opinion anyway, neither the show nor Ms Reynolds should be taken seriously.

Although Weeds’ politics are anathema to me, I think that it’s great entertainment, nonetheless. If I took seriously the political positions of Hollywood writers and directors, I wouldn’t watch much TV. Weeds is a cartoon and it’s a hoot, it seems to me.

I should make clear that my beef with the pilot episode was not that its underlying political slant is wrong. I have to expect that out of many entertainment products, based on who's producing them. I can find humor in shows while rejecting any ludicrous theses that may be implicitly posited. I can find drama and substance as well. And as I said, I recognize the potential for satire in the premise of "Weeds."
But for such a show to work for me, it should at least acknowledge reality (unless it's a fantasy/sci-fi show). In the case of "Weeds," I got the impression that the lead character's activity was to be accepted as fine rather than recognized as criminal. It's not that the main character is a criminal (many entertaining shows have succeeded with such characters), it's that I felt like I was being encouraged to view her selling illegal drugs (including to kids in her neighborhood and son's elementary school) as acceptable. If it's clear that the writers and producers recognize the nature and consequences of their characters' actions, then I can more readily laugh along with them at the situations and satirical insights they make.

I remember last season or the premier season, this 'Subject Matter" was also discussed.
(I guess if you look back 4 pages you might see.)

Anyone notice they changed the opening credits.

They changed some scenes, shortened others, removed the green shirted jogging clones and replaced with a different clone shot.

Too bad I don't have an old one to compare side to side.

This is one show I watch the opening each time, particularly with last years guest singers.

I really like they way it started, as I had forgotten the events leading up to everyone with guns in the kitchen.

How does MILF Weed react with chlorine anyway?


Jerry

Anyone notice they changed the opening credits.

They changed some scenes, shortened others, removed the green shirted jogging clones and replaced with a different clone shot.

Too bad I don't have an old one to compare side to side.

This is one show I watch the opening each time, particularly with last years guest singers.

I really like they way it started, as I had forgotten the events leading up to everyone with guns in the kitchen.

How does MILF Weed react with chlorine anyway?


phox
Yes, they did change the intro...and the pot, it's ruined...although, there's always somebody that will buy anything...

Yes, they did change the intro...and the pot, it's ruined...although, there's always somebody that will buy anything...

Couldn't you just dry it out in the sun? After all, pot should be as resistant to being damaged by water as any other plant which grows outdoors and gets rained on. I wouldn't think the small amount of chlorine in the pool would have any negative effects. Anyway, it looks like she's going to try to dry it out in her clothes dryer next week; now that will do some damage. :p

I remember last season or the premier season, this 'Subject Matter" was also discussed.
(I guess if you look back 4 pages you might see.)

Being shocked by the subject matter on 'Weeds' would seem to be as naive as those folks (including a lot of nuns, apparently) who are always shocked, even after 40 years, that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, which comes out in the winter doldrums of February, doesn't have much to do with sports. :D

Indeed, I could never claim to be shocked by the subject matter of this show when I rented the bluray disc.

Couldn't you just dry it out in the sun? After all, pot should be as resistant to being damaged by water as any other plant which grows outdoors and gets rained on. I wouldn't think the small amount of chlorine in the pool would have any negative effects. Anyway, it looks like she's going to try to dry it out in her clothes dryer next week; now that will do some damage. :p
Well, the chlorine is definitely going to give it a very nasty taste, and there's no way to get that out of the product, and taste is one of the premier selling points of pot.

As far as drying, the best way is using a de-humidifier, and it needs to be done fast or the product will mold and then it's worthless. Think of it this way, take some dried grass or weeds from the your yard, soak them in water and throw them in the dryer, the result is not going to be very pretty. :p

Her best option at this point is to de-humidify it, ground it all up and make hash out of it.

Okay, archiguy. I'll give it a chance. I can see the rich potential for satirical humor in the outrageous scenario, but I'm not likely to stick with it if they expect me to think the lead character is justified somehow in her criminal behavior, no matter how cute and clever she is.

So you probably didn't like the Sopranos, I would suppose :D Criminals can be funny and interesting also. Let's face it, the title of the show is "Weeds. Did you expect something else?

Strange thing happened. I had the program set to record opening night...and then i checked it out..it says searching for authorized content...i get the channel and watch it every chance i get, so i tried to record it again on a repeat....same thing. What could be wrong?

Strange thing happened. I had the program set to record opening night...and then i checked it out..it says searching for authorized content...i get the channel and watch it every chance i get, so i tried to record it again on a repeat....same thing. What could be wrong?
What provider and how are you recording, DVR, PC...?

HR20 HD DVR DirecTV

HR20 HD DVR DirecTV
Sounds like some sort of equipment issue. I would call DirecTV.

So you probably didn't like the Sopranos, I would suppose :D Criminals can be funny and interesting also. Let's face it, the title of the show is "Weeds. Did you expect something else?

You misunderstood my point. I said that programs with criminals as the main characters can be interesting, and of course I expected (knew) the show was about a criminal. But the criminal activity must have consequences; the producers can't ask the audience to accept criminality as acceptable for the show to appeal to me.

But the criminal activity must have consequences; the producers can't ask the audience to accept criminality as acceptable for the show to appeal to me.

Ok ... firstly, you have to assume that said "activity" should be a crime. Secondly, if you watch the show long enough, you'll see your "consequences" and pretty darn big ones at that. I can't say more without spoiling it for you. ;)

Anyone notice they changed the opening credits.
they took submissions from musicians for remakes of the title song and are going to be using a different one for each episode this season. with the tempo change from song to song, you'll prolly see some scenes cut or added from week to week.

the complete list is at http://thetvmanifesto.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/more-little-boxes-familiar-faces-for-weeds-season-3/

New episode is up on ondemand...and it's great. Marvin and U-turn are good characters.

I have to say, I am impressed with their creativity. I never thought the writers would get the show back on track after last seasons train wreck finale. :cool:

The humor is definitely more over the top this season. :eek: :D
I think this outrageous and absurd comedic approach works better in the context of the show. I find the show more authentic and entertaining when it’s totally inconceivable.;)

Ok ... firstly, you have to assume that said "activity" should be a crime. Secondly, if you watch the show long enough, you'll see your "consequences" and pretty darn big ones at that. I can't say more without spoiling it for you. ;)

As to the "firstly" -- It's a given that I must consider the crime an actual crime before I'd hope to see consequences.

As for the "secondly" -- Thanks for the feedback, and I am giving the show a chance. The second episode was much more encouraging than the first, in terms of storyline development. The characters seem like they might become very well developed, and provide rich, satirically-comic insights on suburbia.

I have to say, I am impressed with their creativity. I never thought the writers would get the show back on track after last seasons train wreck finale. :cool:

The humor is definitely more over the top this season. :eek: :D
I think this outrageous and absurd comedic approach works better in the context of the show. I find the show more authentic and entertaining when it’s totally inconceivable.;)
I agree that the over the top approach is working well. Placing a sweet-faced soccer mom who is also a rather big time dope dealer in positions where she has to deal with armed and dangerous gang bangers on one hand, and her crazy family and friends on the other has been great fun.

You misunderstood my point. I said that programs with criminals as the main characters can be interesting, and of course I expected (knew) the show was about a criminal. But the criminal activity must have consequences; the producers can't ask the audience to accept criminality as acceptable for the show to appeal to me.

Keep watching...you'll soon see that Nancy Botwin isn't exactly an Al Capone or a Tony Montana when it comes to distributing illegal substances. :D

Keep watching...you'll soon see that Nancy Botwin isn't exactly an Al Capone or a Tony Montana when it comes to distributing illegal substances. :D

The substance itself is not illegal everywhere. ;)

The substance itself is not illegal everywhere. ;)

The latest government estimate on the number of Americans who have tried "the substance" is 98 million, which, considering the source, is almost certainly conservative. Most of those people understand the futility and staggering waste of resources that at least this one battlefield of the War On Drugs has spawned. Pot use no longer carries the stigma it did 30 years ago. People know better now, the propaganda is no longer effective, and you see that in all aspects of popular culture. The show is also making a wry comment on that nearly universal perception.

It's amazing that a population can have a tacit knowledge or opinion about something like this but still those laws stay firmly on the books. Then again I think about Prohibition--a law that almost no one agreed with but sailed right through. Given a chance, we'll build ourselves into a prison eventually.

I think that's whats so appealing about Nancy Botwin, Tony Soprano, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), etc. Whether you feel they're morally wrong or not, their kind of freedom is intriguing. No more 'submission' to the daily grind, no taking orders from boss, wasting your day away in a cubicle.
Also, especially in the case of 'Weeds', they are free to just hammer away at the bulls**t mirage of morality that the Establishment tries to wrap itself in.
IMHO, that's why audiences will seem to condone criminal behavior in these movies and shows.

I think that's whats so appealing...
...Whether you feel they're morally wrong or not, their kind of freedom is intriguing.
No more 'submission' to the daily grind,
no taking orders from boss, wasting your day away in a cubicle.
....free to just hammer away at the bulls**t mirage of morality that the Establishment tries to wrap itself in.
This thread is getting me primed to pull out some old vinyl and turn it up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4:cool:

Yeah baby, sticking it to The Man! Never mind the bullocks!

Yeah baby, sticking it to The Man! Never mind the bullocks!

Sticking it to Sandra Bullock, on the the other hand, doesn't seem like a bad gig. :p

I think that's whats so appealing about Nancy Botwin, Tony Soprano, Al Swearengen (Deadwood), etc. Whether you feel they're morally wrong or not, their kind of freedom is intriguing.

I was going to mention Al Swearengen as an example of a reprehensible character in a series that actually works, in contradistinction to my initial impression of Nancy Botwin. Al is far worse in his actions and manner than is Nancy, but David Milch and company never seemed to be asking me to consider his vile actions as acceptable. Plus, Al is just so hilarious and so confoundingly literate...

I was going to mention Al Swearengen as an example of a reprehensible character in a series that actually works, in contradistinction to my initial impression of Nancy Botwin. Al is far worse in his actions and manner than is Nancy, but David Milch and company never seemed to be asking me to consider his vile actions as acceptable. Plus, Al is just so hilarious and so confounding literate...

There's a whole lot of difference between Al's actions and Nancy's, though, as you mention. Certainly "vile" is a word that can't be used appropriately with regard to dealing pot, unless you deal it to kids, and Nancy is expressly and vehemently opposed to that.

Perhaps that was my problem with the pilot, archiguy. Nancy did provide the illegal drugs to a young dude who sold it to kids. Why she thought the punk she sold it to would "do the right thing" and refrain from selling it to kids (when he had a pattern of doing exactly that) is beyond me. I was put off by it.

The fact that I agree with the legal restrictions against pot surely causes me to view this program differently than those who might disagree; however, I appreciate "Deadwood," and there's no doubt some of those characters' behavior is far more repulsive to me than what Nancy does. I haven't given up on this show yet, but it's yet to win me over.

I don’t see very much, if any, similarity between Nancy Botwin and Deadwood’s Al Swearingen, other than that both are felons. Nancy is naïve and got into the marijuana business more or less accidentally, then matters escalated at an alarming pace. I am sure I need say no more for those who were Deadwood fans to understand my point. Al, in stark contrast to Nancy, was a stone cold career criminal who would kill remorselessly when it served his purpose to do so.

One of the reasons I think Weeds is so much fun is that, although I am mostly a law and order kind of guy, I have a hard time taking seriously the proposition that the cultivation and sale of marijuana does much harm to the fabric of our society. It’s primary danger is that it’s criminalization has made it so profitable it attracts a bad element. Nancy, understood this clearly when she was looking into the muzzle of U-Turn’s very large handgun. What is about having to take the bitter with the sweet? :)

Although Mary-Louise Parker makes Nancy seem much more appealing that her conduct would otherwise support, Nancy is still a crook and is now suffering the consequences of her misconduct. Weeds is fun and funny but it is hardly an apologia for dope dealing, it seems to me.

Good episode last night.

One of the reasons I think Weeds is so much fun is that, although I am mostly a law and order kind of guy, I have a hard time taking seriously the proposition that the cultivation and sale of marijuana does much harm to the fabric of our society. It’s primary danger is that it’s criminalization has made it so profitable it attracts a bad element.

Bingo. An adage I first heard 20 years ago still applies today: the only thing dangerous about smoking marijuana is that you can go to jail for doing so, even if you have a legitimate medical condition that the weed can help alleviate. Anyone who thinks continued criminalization of this organic substance is still a good idea needs to examine their humanity and reevaluate their priorities. That said, I'm not in the legalization camp, either; that would let the cigarette companies in - not a good idea as they found out in Denmark.

Bingo. An adage I first heard 20 years ago still applies today: the only thing dangerous about smoking marijuana is that you can go to jail for doing so, even if you have a legitimate medical condition that the weed can help alleviate. Anyone who thinks continued criminalization of this organic substance is still a good idea needs to examine their humanity and reevaluate their priorities. That said, I'm not in the legalization camp, either; that would let the cigarette companies in - not a good idea as they found out in Denmark.
Only on the Federal level, as far as they are concerned, marijuana is evil incarnate. On the state and local level the situation is handled much more intelligently depending on where you are. Growing and using marijuana in many California counties is completely legal with the appropriate medical certificate.

In fact, there have been many cases in California where the feds have asked for local assistance when making a raid and the local law enforcement has refused, because according to their local laws there are no laws being broken.

No one should have any doubt that marijuana will be decriminalized at some point in time, it's mostly a matter of how the wind is blowing in Washington.

The problems now are, because it's still largely a lucrative criminal activity, the large crime syndicates from south of the border have set up shop here in California and made things worse.

Decriminalization would remove most of that monetary value/criminal incentive while still providing the benefits of the plant to the people that need/use it.

Anyone who thinks continued criminalization of this organic substance is still a good idea needs to examine their humanity and reevaluate their priorities. That said, I'm not in the legalization camp, either; that would let the cigarette companies in - not a good idea as they found out in Denmark.

I need to examine my humanity and reevaluate my priorities. But I'm also confused: you're not for continued criminalization, nor for legalization...what do you propose?

I need to examine my humanity and reevaluate my priorities. But I'm also confused: you're not for continued criminalization, nor for legalization...what do you propose?

The only thing that's left: decriminalization. Remove the penalties for possession and use, in most circumstances. Certainly, one should retain penalties for distribution to children (same as alcohol). That's the sensible and humane approach, IMO. And I'm not alone; plenty of people on both sides of the political aisle favor this reasonable tack. It will happen eventually; the only question is how many more people will have their lives ruined by the legal system, and how many more billions of tax dollars will be squandered before it does?

The other advantage of decriminalization is that it will open up research on this curious drug. The medicinal uses of marijuana have been discovered quite by accident. Once it became clear that government funded studies on pot were not going to yield the results they wanted, the source of weed for further research dried up, and nobody wanting to do such research could get permission from the government to do it. No reputable scientist is going to risk going to jail. This prohibition on legitimate medical research needs to end. And if you guessed that Big Pharma is one of the leading advocates of continued marijuana prohibition with regard to protection of the status quo, you'd be right. Not hard to figure why.

The only thing that's left: decriminalization. Remove the penalties for possession and use, in most circumstances. Certainly, one should retain penalties for distribution to children (same as alcohol). That's the sensible and humane approach, IMO. And I'm not alone; plenty of people on both sides of the political aisle favor this reasonable tack. It will happen eventually; the only question is how many more people will have their lives ruined by the legal system, and how many more billions of tax dollars will be squandered before it does?

The other advantage of decriminalization is that it will open up research on this curious drug. The medicinal uses of marijuana have been discovered quite by accident. Once it became clear that government funded studies on pot were not going to yield the results they wanted, the source of weed for further research dried up, and nobody wanting to do such research could get permission from the government to do it. No reputable scientist is going to risk going to jail. This prohibition on legitimate medical research needs to end. And if you guessed that Big Pharma is one of the leading advocates of continued marijuana prohibition with regard to protection of the status quo, you'd be right. Not hard to figure why.


possession has been decriminalized here for a while now.

Modern day 'Reefer Madness' on Fox news.
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs

So, "decriminalization" is not legalization, but removes legal consequences? Guess I'd need to be a consumer of the product to understand that...

Modern day 'Reefer Madness' on Fox news.
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs

OMG! :eek: Looks like they got their reports on "Home Meth Labs" and "Homegrown Weed" a little mixed up. Oh well, that's Fox News. A third of their faithful viewing audience still thinks Saddam attacked us on 9/11; they'll lap this crap up, too. :p:rolleyes:

So, "decriminalization" is not legalization, but removes legal consequences? Guess I'd need to be a consumer of the product to understand that...

It might help. ;) I think it's a matter of trying to be realistic, UK. For 50 years there has been a steady flow of disinformation and propaganda about this substance coming from Washington. Countering that is the actual knowledge of the stuff from tens of millions of people who have actually used it. Most of those folks don't want to rock the boat or sabotage their lives with actual testimony. So, decriminalization is probably the best we're going to get. And, as I said above, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Letting the cigarette companies in would be a nightmare, and that's what stands at the end of the road to legalization.

Frankly, I think maybe 1/2 of what the pro side says is true and maybe 1/2 of what the con side is true. "It" is neither "completely harmless" nor is it "the road to hell." ;)

Modern day 'Reefer Madness' on Fox news.
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcPF59CoGvs

Unbelievable, but then, not unexpected considering the source.

Frankly, I think maybe 1/2 of what the pro side says is true and maybe 1/2 of what the con side is true. "It" is neither "completely harmless" nor is it "the road to hell." ;)

Depends on whether you talked to people that actually had some first-hand experience. I think you'd find a few million people who would vouch for the former; not sure you'd find any who aren't on the DEA payroll who would claim the latter. ;)

So, "decriminalization" is not legalization, but removes legal consequences? Guess I'd need to be a consumer of the product to understand that...

Not so hard to understand, it just means that laws that result in criminal prosecution for using/having the drug would be rescinded. It does not mean that there would be formal laws legalizing it's use.

There would be no laws for or against it's use, I guess it would come under the heading of personal freedoms.

Depends on whether you talked to people that actually had some first-hand experience.

I've seen it go either way ... granted some of the individuals involved may have had a predisposition to "head down the road to hell." I would never categorize "it" as "completely harmless." ... And I'm not a DEA agent either. ;)

That having been said, I agree that criminalization (ala Prohibition) just multiplies the problems ... we're still trying to clean up the mess from that "experiment."

I've seen it go either way ... granted some of the individuals involved may have had a predisposition to "head down the road to hell." I would never categorize "it" as "completely harmless." ... And I'm not a DEA agent either. ;)


The government has fun with statistics. Most heroin and cocaine abusers have tried marijuana at some point, so then it becomes a "gateway drug". (They've probably tried beer at some point too, but alcohol never seems to be part of that discussion.) Let aside that fact that 99% of people who smoke pot never go on to do anything harder. Another little trick is that every time somebody is busted for pot, they have to undergo court-ordered "counseling" and "rehab". So, that becomes a stat for how so many marijuana users end up in rehab, as if it were their idea. Etc., etc. :rolleyes:

They try very hard to create a perception where pot and truly dangerous drugs like cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are rolled into the same sociopathic ball. And it gets harder and harder to keep the game up as more and more people realize what a crock it is. That's why decriminalization is coming; it's just going to take longer to get here than in more progressive countries.

There would be no laws for or against it's use, I guess it would come under the heading of personal freedoms.

Activities not proscribed by law are known as "legal." Thus my befuddlement at the notion that "decriminalization" does not equal "legalization." Peace.

Activities not proscribed by law are know as "legal." Thus my befuddlement at the notion that "decriminalization" does not equal "legalization." Peace.

Okay, I see your point, decriminalization would remove criminal prosecution from having/using/growing of marijuana. Currently every one of those things can put you in jail in many parts of the country, decriminalization would eliminate that.

Presently, in California, possession of pot is often as simple as a traffic ticket, and with a medical certificate it's completely legal to grow and smoke, and even transport up to 2 lbs of manicured product, while in other states it could mean mandatory prison time, nationwide support for decriminalization would eliminate that nonsense.

I've seen it go either way ... granted some of the individuals involved may have had a predisposition to "head down the road to hell." I would never categorize "it" as "completely harmless." ... And I'm not a DEA agent either. ;)

I guess it depends on your definition of harmless.
I believe that 'it' IS harmless but that is also with the assumption that it is being used in moderation. I mean, if you're smoking 12 joints a day every day of your adult life then of course harm will come to your body.
The same can be said about ANYTHING that is generally considered harmless.

Take, say, aspirin for example. I think most people would consider it a harmless drug but if you were downing a bottle a day of it you would have some serious consequences. But used in moderation aspirin will not have long term consequences.

So, if we're using the 'in moderation' caveat I think it would be hard to show harm like the propoganda would like you to believe.

So, if we're using the 'in moderation' caveat I think it would be hard to show harm like the propaganda would like you to believe.

Indeed. "It" is not addictive; it doesn't re-wire your brain to produce a craving for more of "it" like dangerous drugs (and many prescription drugs as well) do; just doesn't work that way. And that fact is why they don't allow any medical research into "it". They didn't like that the results of studies the government itself sponsored back in the 60's and 70's didn't demonstrate any danger, so they just prevent any more studies from being done that might reinforce that fact. Even the PSA's they produce no longer mention any health risks from consumption, since there's no data to back it up. Instead, they've moved to a tack of suggesting that if you use pot, you'll burn your house down or something. Wonder if that's ever happened? :rolleyes:

Anyone see the statistics for the percentage of Americans taking antidepressants? It's scary. I'd bet my ass that someday they'll make antidepressants an over the counter drug in an attempt to have nearly 100% of people taking them. I'm not putting down anyone for taking antidepressants, just pointing out how aggressively the Pharma industry will pump it, yet should someone attempt to self medicate with homegrown natural remedy, one that can't be patented.....

On a side note: Wow, Mary Louise Parker is pretty damn good shape. That scene where she strips down and jumps in the pool was pretty easy on the eyes!

Even the PSA's they produce no longer mention any health risks from consumption, since there's no data to back it up. Instead, they've moved to a tack of suggesting that if you use pot, you'll burn your house down or something. Wonder if that's ever happened? :rolleyes:

What they do now is say if you smoke pot then you're funding terrorist activities, and that could be true, but only because the government's attitude toward the stuff has made it that way. Eliminate the reason for the high prices for the stuff and it's value as a money making venture becomes almost nil. With local governments already relaxing laws in the last few years the price of the stuff has plummeted already. But as long as there are people across the country who can only obtain it through illegal means there will always be someone making big money on it, and in some cases that money ends up in the "wrong" place.

This thread is a about a TV show right? I'm pretty sure it started that way.

This thread is a about a TV show right? I'm pretty sure it started that way.

Consider it a public service. There's a lot of damaging misinformation and outright lies out there reinforced by 50 years of unrelenting propaganda. And the discussion does tend to flow organically from a show about and titled 'Weeds'. But feel free to steer the discussion back to how great Nancy looked when she jumped into the pool. On that point you will find much agreement.

Yeah, this is certainly a show that generates a lot of off topic discussion, but eventually the thread gets back on topic. It good to keep people happy though, so at the end of every off topic post type 'Oh yeah, the PQ is great'

I was going to mention Al Swearengen as an example of a reprehensible character in a series that actually works, in contradistinction to my initial impression of Nancy Botwin. Al is far worse in his actions and manner than is Nancy, but David Milch and company never seemed to be asking me to consider his vile actions as acceptable. Plus, Al is just so hilarious and so confoundingly literate...

I don't think you're asked to accept Nancy's activity either. It's pretty clear everyone is pretty screwed up on the show, and this season she's in over her head. Now, if you want her to be arrested and thrown in jail, that won't happen soon because, well, there'll be no show then.

Remember it's a TV comedy. They have to make funny things that would be much more serious in real life. I doubt that there are many pot dealers as sweet and doe-eyed as Nancy.

It's a very delicate balancing act they have to do on this show and I think they're falling off the beam a little this season b/c things are geting way out of hand. They need to pull back from the brink and fast.

Back to the show. I am wondering where they are taking the show this season. This show seemed to have a quirky light-hearted approach, but now they seem to take the show in a darker direction. It will be interesting to see if they can keep the show funny.

I agree. The show was much more fun when she was baking pot into cupcakes and hooking up Kevin Nealon. Smaller stakes, less danger, more fun. The moment the DEA agent/boyfriend entered the picture it seemed to start getting too heavy.

Can somebody refresh my memory (I searched on the Weeds site on Sho.com and couldn't find a satisfactory answer). Why is Andy forced to go into the Army? Since there's no draft I'm sure I'm forgetting something from a previous episode. Thanks.

Can somebody refresh my memory (I searched on the Weeds site on Sho.com and couldn't find a satisfactory answer). Why is Andy forced to go into the Army? Since there's no draft I'm sure I'm forgetting something from a previous episode. Thanks.

I think it's because he joined the National Guard for college tuition assistance and was still enlisted. He went to become a Rabbi so that he could claim conscientious objector status when his unit got activated. After his toes got bitten off by the guard dog at the "grow" house, he dropped out of Rabbinical school because he was physically unfit for service and thought he didn't have anything to worry about. As the war progresses, the Army changed his loss of toes to a non-disqualifying handicap and he was activated.

Andy joined the Army Reserve (I'm pretty sure he said while in Colorado) to impress a girl.

Andy joined the Army Reserve (I'm pretty sure he said while in Colorado) to impress a girl.

Yup...in the last episode of Season 1, Andy get the letter from the Army and goes to Doug's office and starts his "They found me..." speech about impressing the girl in CO and Jägermeister being involved. :D

Does anyone else feel that the show is much less funny that it has been in the past two seasons? I keep feeling like poor Nancy is going to get turned into a prostitute or get raped--her little brick dance, her new 'boss', it's too heavy, too serious. Even Kevin Nealon isn't 1% as funny as he was in the past. Nearly everyone's down on their luck, even Celia, stuck in that crappy hotel room. It seems like they've wandered away from their killer formula a bit, at least to me that's how it seems.

Weeds used to be a darkish comedy. Now is it just plain dark. I used to laugh most of the show. Now I feel tense while I am watching since the issues seem very real life, especially any scene with U-turn. I preferred the lighter version.

Does anyone else feel that the show is much less funny that it has been in the past two seasons? I keep feeling like poor Nancy is going to get turned into a prostitute or get raped--her little brick dance, her new 'boss', it's too heavy, too serious. Even Kevin Nealon isn't 1% as funny as he was in the past. Nearly everyone's down on their luck, even Celia, stuck in that crappy hotel room. It seems like they've wandered away from their killer formula a bit, at least to me that's how it seems.I still like the show, but kind of agree with your point. They'll either morph the show into something else or have to get back to what made it funny to begin with.

Does anyone else feel that the show is much less funny that it has been in the past two seasons?.....

YES! I was wondering if it was just me. It feels darker, scarier, and
the humor is much more subtle. I'll keep watching, but it's definitely
taking on a different feeling this season, and I'm not sure I like it as much.

YES! I was wondering if it was just me. It feels darker, scarier, and
the humor is much more subtle. I'll keep watching, but it's definitely
taking on a different feeling this season, and I'm not sure I like it as much.I thought it took the turn for the dark side last season when she (and we) found out that her boyfriend was with the DEA.

If anything, the first episode of this season had enough over the top wacky (pun intended:p) humor to keep to the original form… but this last episode, (with that brick dance?:confused::eek:) was pathetic.

The show has always been uncomfortable for me to sit through but I’ve laughed and enjoyed it for the most part. When I don’t laugh anymore and I’m just uncomfortable-- then I’m gone.

… but this last episode, (with that brick dance?:confused::eek:) was pathetic.....

Hmmm.....I felt the same way....surprisingly. As a guy, I had no
problem watching Ms. Parker move like that, but as a fan of the
show, it just didn't seem right, and actually made me feel a bit
uncomfortable since I didn't know how far they were gonna go
with it. That's how the show has become "scarier" to me.

Last season ended and this season has started on a sour note. The whole "Gangsta" part of the show is just dumb. Everybody with guns aimed at each other and Nancy.... whatever. Now she owes him $150,000??? Whatever... a little tip to the cops and he'd be gone.

The comical part of the show is gone... The original idea of a single mom having to sell/grow dope to get by was believable... now it's not. It's hard for me to watch TV shows that are not "believable" or at least tangent to reality.

I'm thinking Weeds has jumped the shark too. First season was decent, second was excellent and so far it's - Eh. If it wasn't for Elizabeth Perkins and her life subplot it would be a total loss.

larry

While I still enjoy the show, I kind of find myself agreeing with others that it's taken a disturbing turn toward "the dark side". I think it started with the DEA agent getting killed at the end of last season. It's an unwritten rule in comedy that you can't kill off a character unless he's a bad guy, so they re-made him, essentially, into a sleazy crooked cop to soften the blow. But there was still a question, right up to the end, of whether he was actually offed or not. Apparently so. But this stuff with U-turn - it's just not very funny, and that's the problem.

But it's still far better, and funnier, than 'Californication'. That one's been, on balance, a big disappointment for me.

I'm hoping that the two women will join forces, get back into the business, and pay off U-Turn, thereby restoring a lighter theme. I too believe the direction this show has taken in the last several episodes (stretching back into last season) is darker and frankly, uncomfortable to watch.

From some news I read in the summer things are going to change. I don't want to give any spoiler to anyone but my guess is that there are in a transition right now and they are going to be a comedy again soon.

I read about something related to a church leader

Get rid of Uturn asap, get her back to baking pot laced confections asap! It was good to see Kevin Nealon back to his old post in City Council though...one small step anyway.

I thought that this week’s episode of Weeds STUNK. What is funny about a kid soldier getting killed by having his chest penetrated by a dummy missile warhead? Jesus! These guys have forgotten how to be funny. If the next episode is even half as bad as this one was, I’m through.

I agree that U-Turn is a downer but the irritation he engendered in me was nothing compared to some of the other dreck in this episode. It is appalling when a show is so awful that even an actress as immensely talented and charming as Mary-Louise Parker can’t salvage it.

In fairness, there were a few funny lines, especially the scatological, homophobic invective the drill sergeant directed at the recruits on the obstacle course. Still, that wasn’t enough to rescue this mess from sadness and dreariness.

...this week’s episode of Weeds STUNK...Agree, a dismal episode, two in a row. And this new Mathew Modine character :rolleyes: and story line doesn’t look interesting to me.

I thought that this week’s episode of Weeds STUNK. What is funny about a kid soldier getting killed by having his chest penetrated by a dummy missile warhead? Jesus! These guys have forgotten how to be funny. If the next episode is even half as bad as this one was, I’m through.



I agree as well, at least with the DEA boyfriend, his death was off-camera, the death of the soldier was rather shocking and seems completely out place for this show, in fact, the whole story line with the brother in law in the army is unnecessary IMO.

This show really has lost it's humorous core, everything is becoming too dark and very unfunny. It's as if the writers have moved the story along way too fast and are now at a point where they are stuck with what they have created, it's going to be hard to steer the show back to the hilarity of the first season.

Well, I gave up, and I hadn't even made it to this season. The potential for satire was rich, but it just wasn't paying off for me. My favorite part was the legal store for various weed-products, using loopholes in the California law. ("Good S#!^ Lollipop" was the name of the ep.) That showed that "legal/medical mj" was solely an excuse for the sterotypical slacker/loser to get high. Funny.

But I hated the evil uncle storyline, and the show lost me when he started trying to seduce his nephew's girlfriend via obscene text messages. Not funny.

Well, I gave up, and I hadn't even made it to this season. The potential for satire was rich, but it just wasn't paying off for me. My favorite part was the legal store for various weed-products, using loopholes in the California law. ("Good S#!^ Lollipop" was the name of the ep.) That showed that "legal/medical mj" was solely an excuse for the sterotypical slacker/loser to get high. Funny.

But I hated the evil uncle storyline, and the show lost me when he started trying to seduce his nephew's girlfriend via obscene text messages. Not funny.
Yeah, somewhere along the line, this season in particular, Weeds’ writers lost their funny edginess and their stuff turned clumsy and meanspirited. “Not funny,” indeed.

I agree, this show is just not funny anymore. It makes me cringe more than laugh now.
The only reason I'm still watching is for Ms. Parker, but even she's not gonna be able to save the show much longer. I hope the writers get a clue soon.....

Yeah, somewhere along the line, this season in particular, Weeds’ writers lost their funny edginess and their stuff turned clumsy and meanspirited. “Not funny,” indeed.

He was talking about the early part of season 1 (BTW, if didn't like Andy and think he's "evil" then you honestly should never even try watching this shows...it's just not for you). The show was great during season 1 and season 2. It's still great...it was just one bad episode (and it wasn't even that bad...the Nancy/DEA agent storyline has alot of promise). Amazing how people overreact and stop watching shows completely after one minor misstep.

He was talking about the early part of season 1 (BTW, if didn't like Andy and think he's "evil" then you honestly should never even try watching this shows...it's just not for you). The show was great during season 1 and season 2. It's still great...it was just one bad episode (and it wasn't even that bad...the Nancy/DEA agent storyline has alot of promise). Amazing how people overreact and stop watching shows completely after one minor misstep.

Yeah, I agree. While it's become a bit darker so far this season, now that I think about it, its type of humor has always been pretty dark. *shrugs* Anyways, I enjoyed the last episode. It's still funny in its own counterculture way, and now that the Matthew Modine storyline has kicked in, I expect the mirth quotient to ratchet back up.

Yeah, I agree. While it's become a bit darker so far this season, now that I think about it, its type of humor has always been pretty dark. *shrugs* Anyways, I enjoyed the last episode. It's still funny in its own counterculture way, and now that the Matthew Modine storyline has kicked in, I expect the mirth quotient to ratchet back up.

It has always been 'dark', in my opinion.
I have just read all the recent postings and I can see all the negative thoughts. I still enjoy the show, nothing wrong with it.

He was talking about the early part of season 1 (BTW, if didn't like Andy and think he's "evil" then you honestly should never even try watching this shows...it's just not for you). The show was great during season 1 and season 2. It's still great...it was just one bad episode (and it wasn't even that bad...the Nancy/DEA agent storyline has alot of promise). Amazing how people overreact and stop watching shows completely after one minor misstep.
I hold no brief for whether Andy is “evil.” If you want to take issue with the poster who DID say that he thought Andy was evil, you might try quoting his post and not mine.
I do, however, stand by my earlier comments that this season’s shows, particularly the last two, have been dramatically less funny than those of the first couple of seasons were. There is a reason why this seems to be the consensus here. I ask again, what could anyone have possibly found funny about a kid army recruit being struck and killed by the dummy warhead of a missile? Yuk!

...the last two, have been dramatically less funny than those of the first couple of seasons were.

.....what could anyone have possibly found funny about a kid army recruit being struck and killed by the dummy warhead of a missile? Yuk!I’m 100% with you G.:cool:

I’ve been with the show form the beginning and have always given praise accordingly but this show seems like it has two groups of writers that are never together at the writing meetings.:p The last two episodes (and last season’s finale) were written by one group. A different crew, the funny group wrote this season's premiere.:rolleyes: That’s the way it appears to me.

And the Modine character ugh…:eek: The premise is ok (sewer problems in the neighboring ticky-tacky village) …but his character :rolleyes: …it looks like he walked out of the Dabney Coleman (mold(y) ) school of acting. :D

The missile to the chest was insane but so was the whole boot camp regurgitation.

But I’m not going to quit just yet.

I’m 100% with you G.:cool:

And the Modine character ugh…:eek: The premise is ok (sewer problems in the neighboring ticky-tacky village) …but his character :rolleyes: …it looks like he walked out of the Dabney Coleman (mold(y) ) school of acting. :D

The missile to the chest was insane but so was the whole boot camp regurgitation.

But I’m not going to quit just yet.
I shouldn’t allow my growing dislike of the show to color my judgment but it may have done just that where Modine is concerned. I know that he is a good, although sometimes overrated, actor. Still, his smarmy politician shtick in Weeds hasn’t done much for me.

Critics have seemed to consistently see more in Modine’s performances than I ever have. I remember one of his first starring roles, as the title character in “Birdy,” with Nicholas Cage. The critics kept saying how wonderful Modine was but didn’t say much, if anything, about Cage. What’s wrong with this picture?

I suppose that in fairness I should observe that Modine is apparently a solid citizen. He has been married to the same woman for more than 25 years and has a couple of kids.

I am going to stick with Weeds, too, at least for another week or so.

I thoght he performed well in Memphis Belle.

Modine is a talented actor. Check out Demme's "Married to the Mob" -- he's a riot in that one, even though he plays it down.

My earlier post about Modine was probably unfair. I have tended to blame him for the over-the-top praise the critics gave him for his performance in "Birdy," while they virtually ignored the young Nicholas Cage who was even better. That wasn’t Modine’s fault, of course and that movie was released nearly 25 years ago. It’s time to forgive and forget, I guess. :)

Modine is, indeed, a fine actor. It’s clear to me that his unappealing performances in Weeds so far should be blamed on the writers, not on him.

I liked “Married to the Mob” but had forgotten that Modine was in it. The performances I remember most from that film were Alec Baldwin’s, Mercedes Ruehl’s, and Michelle Pfeiffer’s. They were perfectly cast and very, very funny. Is there anybody better than Baldwin as a scary but funny sleazeball?

Is there anybody better than Baldwin as a scary but funny sleazeball?

My honest response to this inquiry would get me in trouble... ;)

What happend to the Mary-Kate Olsen for this season?
Is she not gonna appear until later on?

This show is still great.

What happend to the Mary-Kate Olsen for this season?.She’s there, you didn’t see her? Maybe she turned to the side and disappeared, or was obscured by a blade of "grass". :p:D

haha.
No, I have not seen her. Unless her role in this season is so small, you do not really 'see' her.
A friend of mine said she will be coming in a couple of weeks.

I wasn’t trying to offend anyone, honest. If I did please accept my apologies. I was only having fun.


Since you and I were the last two remaining fans of 'John from Cinci', you get cut plenty of slack from me. :D

Since you and I were the last two remaining fans of 'John from Cinci', you get cut plenty of slack from me. :D

3

3

Yep, that's us - the few, the brave, the proud............ the confused. :p

Yep, that's us - the few, the brave, the proud............ the confused. :p

Definitely, I don't think I've ever been more entertained by being more confused by any other TV show. :D

It seems that most of us who enjoyed JfC and thought that it was a success were also “Milchiacs” (Is that a word?) and loved Deadwood.

Back to Weeds, if only briefly, I hope that the show can find its pace again and get back to what it was during its first season. Having it get cancelled would certainly be a waste of the talented and charming Mary-Louise Parker. Come to think of it, I would miss Elizabeth Perkins almost as much. Every time I see her I think of her wonderful performance in “Big.” Like Parker, she is also a stage actress. Weeds’ problem is certainly not a lack of acting talent.

I was unsurprised to discover that no one else has posted about this week’s Weeds episode. I was so disappointed that I came within a whisker of canceling my TiVo’s Season Pass but changed my mind only because of one exchange that was really funny.

When the teacher at the fundamentalist school accompanied Nancy’s younger son to Nancy’s car, the teacher asked Nancy if she was “a Jewish.” Nancy replied, that she was not “a Jewish” but her husband was. Then the teacher asked, “Oh, did he pass,” to which Nancy at first replied, “A lot of people thought he was Italian,” before realizing that the teacher was asking if he was dead. Credit where credit is due, I thought that was fun stuff.

Despite my fondness for the exchange between Nancy and the fundamentalist teacher, I thought most of the episode was dreary, dreary, dreary. The writers are relying on outrageous situations and meanspiritedness, with the effect that there’s virtually nobody left to like. For example, I have had my fill and more of both U-Turn and Nancy’s slacker brother in law. And what was the deal with the deranged colonel with the anger management issues?

This show should've ended with the Season 2 finale. The Colonel's part sounded like it was written by a 5 year old who was told to make him "a bad guy". We get it, you think the military is a bunch of idiots surpassed only by the idiocy of Christians.

If you want to push an agenda, schedule a lunch with David E. Kelley and find out how he does it (when he doesn't think his show is about to get cancelled).

I was unsurprised to discover that no one else has posted about this week’s Weeds episode. So much for must see TV. That’s how great the last two episodes have been (Joke) -- I forgot all about the show. :eek:

I’ll catch it on one of the Showtime HD reruns. I only read this first line of your post. I’ll check back after I watch it.:cool:

This show should've ended with the Season 2 finale. The Colonel's part sounded like it was written by a 5 year old who was told to make him "a bad guy". We get it, you think the military is a bunch of idiots surpassed only by the idiocy of Christians.

If you want to push an agenda, schedule a lunch with David E. Kelley and find out how he does it (when he doesn't think his show is about to get cancelled).
Yeah, Weeds' writers have been so busy pushing their nihilistic counterculture agenda, they have forgotten that if they aren’t funny, viewers won't care what they write, regardless of political preferences.

I also agree about the scene with the colonel. Unlike the exchange between the fundamentalist teacher and Nancy about whether Nancy was “a Jewish,” which was funny, indeed, the intended send up of the military in the scene with the angry colonel was so bad, it was painful.

I concur with the above, this show is just not that funny anymore, and the whole Andy/army thing seemed like a ridiculous waste of time.

Along with the "a Jewish" exchange, Doug getting a golf membership versus Celia getting a house was pretty funny.

The fact that she now has a trunk full of heroin would seem to indicate the show is headed down even darker roads now, not sure how much comedy that direction can produce.

I agree with you guys, Weeds better find it's groove real quick. I wonder how the ratings for it are doing? I would guess they are losing viewers if AVS is any indication.

What about the abortion scene it the episode? That was really funny because it's shockingly realistic to a scene from my own young adulthood.

This show should've ended with the Season 2 finale.
Not to be rude. I disagree.
They should get another contract for next season :p

Disagreeing isn't rude - it just means you're wrong. :)

Seriously, I hope they do turn it around because I really enjoyed the first two seasons. I'm just not hopeful after the start of season 3.

I still like the show, but it is a lot different than the first two seasons. Some of the events portrayed now (as well as a few characters, like the Colonel) are just too over the top. From this point, though, I don't think they really can go back and follow the kind of storylines they had in the first two seasons. They just need to adjust what they are doing and keep it funny and maybe a little more in the realm of reality (sort of). I'm not sure if they can do that; and if not I'm afraid that there won't be a season 3.

I didn't watch last week episode after all the bad reviews. I watched this week episode tonight and found it funny.
Yeah it's not the same Weeds as season 1 and some parts of season 2, but it's still funny. I liked the parts mentioned above and also all the scenes with U Turn and the Prius. Yes, the show is pro-liberal, but they can also make fun of the Prius.

Yes, the show is pro-liberal, but they can also make fun of the Prius.

Military=bad ....... Prius=quiet

That's hardly balanced, it's more "Fair and balanced" ;)

Balance isn't really the issue though. Any show that leans to one side ideologically, even way to one side, can still be entertaining. What drags the show down is when you make the other side a ridiculous unrealistic characature - that takes the viewer "out" of the show.

I have not seen this week's show, but for me it is as funny as it ever was. The show just has a darker tone than it used to. Every side of the aisle gets lampooned on this show. I do not see a bias in any of the characters portrayed. Everyone on this show is played for the big effect.

Military=bad ....... Prius=quiet

That's hardly balanced, it's more "Fair and balanced" ;)

Balance isn't really the issue though. Any show that leans to one side ideologically, even way to one side, can still be entertaining. What drags the show down is when you make the other side a ridiculous unrealistic characature - that takes the viewer "out" of the show.
It’s silly to use the political inclinations of the artists involved in any artistic endeavor as a reason not to enjoy what they do. If what they do is any good, that is. The problem with Weeds this year isn’t the political cant of its writers, it’s that the show isn’t very funny anymore.

The subject of a lot of recent discussion here, Alec Baldwin, is a classic example of why we shouldn’t let politics deprive us of good entertainment. Despite my profound disagreement with Baldwin’s politics, I never miss one of his performances because he is always excellent, and sometimes great. I am so impressed with his acting that I have learned to laugh at his pontifications instead of letting them make me angry. The guy really is funny – sometimes when he doesn’t intend to be. :)

The subject of a lot of recent discussion here, Alec Baldwin, is a classic example of why we shouldn’t let politics deprive us of good entertainment. Despite my profound disagreement with Baldwin’s politics, I never miss one of his performances because he is always excellent, and sometimes great. I am so impressed with his acting that I have learned to laugh at his pontifications instead of letting them make me angry. The guy really is funny – sometimes when he doesn’t intend to be. :)

Can we please try to resist the temptation to keep taking shots at Alec Baldwin? Hasn't it gotten old yet? The fact remains that if we had paid a little more attention to him and those who shared similar viewpoints, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today. The fact that there are those who still get a little dose of self-satisfaction by slamming a guy whose views have proved to be much more mainstream than their own doesn't mean they still get a free pass in denigrating him. This ain't 2003 anymore where those who urged caution can get belittled with impunity; get over it. :rolleyes:

And 'Weeds', while admittedly losing a step this season, is still funnier than 'Californication'. Better writing and inspired casting are 'Weeds' ultimate trump-cards. Be patient, it'll come around. ;)

Agree Archi - enough Baldwin talk - it "was" a subject of recent discussion, but as you'll notice, that discussion no longer exists. If you want to talk Baldwin - discuss his comedic genius in the 30 Rock thread.

I also agree (gwsat) that the political leanings of actors/writers/producers have no bearing on the enjoyment of the show. But I disagree in the sense that in this case, they've allowed it to influence the show with fantastical characters that take away from the show itself. It isn't that it just "stopped being funny".

In fact, as funny as the first two seasons were - the appeal, to me at least, was the drama and characters involved. You really were rooting for Parker's character and behind all the humor was an interesting story progressing that kept you engaged. When you add the characatures (like the Colonel) you remove any real investment you have in the story because the realism is gone - what you're left with is a show that has to convert to a sitcom in order to survive.

My wife and I finally caught up with the last 3 episodes of the season last night and we're really enjoying the season.

I personally felt it couldn't continue forever with Nancy holding it together. Not that the show was realistic to begin with but it was starting to really defy logic. I like the way Nancy's character is kinda tumbling down the rabbit hole and getting deeper and deeper. And it's still being handled in a rather light hearted way.

So I agree it's getting darker, but I don't agree that it's not as good. I thought the drive by seen was hilarious.

I did find the drive-by shooting funny, and finally Kevin Nealon is getting to do his thing again! 'All in favor of more pipe? Aye's have it. A moment of silence for the dirt shrew'
LOL :D

I think if they had known there would be a season 3 earlier - they wouldn't have taken the season 2 finale to the point that the whole show moved away from the somewhat realistic (with exception to the Snoop Dog episode). They could have continued along with a much better show than what the S2 finale forced them into.

I think if they had known there would be a season 3 earlier - they wouldn't have taken the season 2 finale to the point that the whole show moved away from the somewhat realistic (with exception to the Snoop Dog episode). They could have continued along with a much better show than what the S2 finale forced them into.

Yeah, once they killed off the DEA guy, the show wasn't going to be the same. That was almost shocking in the context of the light hearted nature of the show.

Of course, to me, the way Seinfeld killed off Susan was a similar feeling. Yet they definitely manged to continue on in the same light hearted way in subsequent seasons.

Agree Archi - enough Baldwin talk - it "was" a subject of recent discussion, but as you'll notice, that discussion no longer exists. If you want to talk Baldwin - discuss his comedic genius in the 30 Rock thread.
And I had thought that the last time I mentioned You Know Who, I was complimenting him. Silly me, I guess.

Yeah, once they killed off the DEA guy, the show wasn't going to be the same. That was almost shocking in the context of the light hearted nature of the show.

Of course, to me, the way Seinfeld killed off Susan was a similar feeling. Yet they definitely manged to continue on in the same light hearted way in subsequent seasons.
Your Seinfeld reference was right on, I thought. The thread starting with Susan’s poisoning and death as a result of George having bought cheap wedding invitation envelopes, along with the continuing developments, couldn’t have been darker but, man, they were funny

I agree about the DEA guy. It would be more interesting to have the guy there for a couple of seasons. But they did it too fast, first they were "in love", then he went on them, and then he was killed. That was really fast, in just one season!

...fantastical characters that take away from the show itself...
It’s almost like they are making a point. They are trying to skew the lines of what is perceived as the norm. She is not a bad character; she is a victim of today’s world. You want to see screwed up people, take a look at these characters in the school. They’re supposed to be the normal ones. Well ha! to that.

I guess that was the whole idea from day one- as the theme song reinforces that sentiment every week.

.....

I found the “did he pass?” scene very funny too. :D
And any time you can make a Vic Mackey reference:cool: —you can put me down for another week. It softened the "teacher Bob" clumsy climax. :eek::confused:

And I had thought that the last time I mentioned You Know Who, I was complimenting him. Silly me, I guess.



Yeah, whenever I tell someone that I "laugh at their pontifications instead of letting them make me angry" (and that was only the last of several such little digs), they're so grateful for the complement. You're such a kidder! :rolleyes:

Your Seinfeld reference was right on, I thought. The thread starting with Susan’s poisoning and death as a result of George having bought cheap wedding invitation envelopes, along with the continuing developments, couldn’t have been darker but, man, they were funny.

Different context. 'Seinfeld' was pure farce, from start to finish. Every situation was played for over-the-top laughs. 'Weeds', a "single-camera" comedy, has different goals. It's set, however so marginally, in "real life". I agree that the sudden demise of the DEA agent was not only jarringly sudden, but raised the stakes much higher than we had been accustomed to. Ditto the flaky soldier with the missile in his chest. We expect the characters in a comedy to engage in outrageous situations; we don't necessarily expect them to die violently.

Different context. 'Seinfeld' was pure farce, from start to finish. Every situation was played for over-the-top laughs. 'Weeds', a "single-camera" comedy, has different goals. It's set, however so marginally, in "real life". I agree that the sudden demise of the DEA agent was not only jarringly sudden, but raised the stakes much higher than we had been accustomed to. Ditto the flaky soldier with the missile in his chest. We expect the characters in a comedy to engage in outrageous situations; we don't necessarily expect them to die violently.
I have reservations about the notion that Weeds is set “in ‘real life’” although its writers may have wished it. I agree, though, that the jarring deaths on Weeds haven’t worked, which gets me back to the show’s weakness: it’s just not funny most of the time. I wish they would quit tantalizing me with the occasional scene that makes me laugh out loud. That way, I could simply quit watching but as it is I feel like I am being Chinese water tortured while waiting for something funny to happen. :)

From Today, on the same subject we've been discussing... (Come on, which one of you sent in the question ? ;) )



TV Q&A
Ask Matt (from the Ask Matt column at TVGuide.com)
The darker side of “Weeds”; the risqué side of “Tell Me You Love Me”: the spooky side of “True Blood”; and more!
By Matt Roush: B]TVGuide [/b] Senior Critic Monday, September 17, 2007

Question: I adore Weeds for its unapologetic, politically incorrect, irreverent way of handling itself. I am slightly concerned about some of the comments I've seen about this season, though, and the way the story appears to be at a crossroads. I've heard other critics say that the series must deal with the darker, more sinister side of Nancy's pot dealing — that anything less would be a cop-out for the writers. The implication is that the show has to be serious, at least at moments, in order to be good. While I agree that this dark comedy needs to skirt the "darkness" of Nancy's situation to keep its creative juices flowing, I would hate to see it turn into sanctimonious drivel just to make a point. Any thoughts?— Karin I.

Matt Roush: There's plenty of darkness in Weeds, but it always goes hand in hand with the comedy and satire, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Just last week Nancy got involved in a harrowing drive-by-shooting incident (while turning her drug boss into a Prius fan), and the emphasis was on the absurdist humor of the danger in which this unmerry suburban widow keeps finding herself. Sanctimony has nothing to do with it, at least if the snarky new subplots involving the neighboring holier-than-thou Majestic community is any indication. I'm now caught up with everyone else (no new advance screeners have come in lately), so I'm not sure where the story's going. But to me, Nancy has had to deal with the consequences of her actions all along — she's not exactly celebrating turning her oldest son into a dealer — so I don't think the show is copping out on that front, either.

I thought tonite may have been the best ep of this season, and I'm not exactly sure why. I really enjoyed it, though.

I don't what you guys are crying about but this still show is great, and tonight's episode was the best of this season so far. I wonder what will happen after it's events?

Maybe it's just me, but was killing off Uturn just a clean up for bad storylines?

Yes, killing UTurn was the writers taking a mulligan (intentional, or not) and thank goodness.

Nancy will probably bitch-slap his #2 into becoming her #2. She's gonna need him to unload that heroin - doubtful that Agrestic is gonna provide a good target market. :)

Modine's character isn't the greatest, but could improve as he's forced to get down and dirty. Mary Kate was a nice addition, her character is mesmerizing.

Maybe it's just me, but was killing off Uturn just a clean up for bad storylines?

I finally agree with everybody else. That scene where he smothered Uturn was not comedy, that was drama.

Great episode last night.

Yeah, i doubt tha Agrestic will be a good place to sell that.

This was mostly good stuff in this week’s episode. They killed off U-Turn, and thank God for it! I like the dynamic between Nancy and U-Turn’s fat, dumb cousin and number two. As stupid he is, there is something inherently sweet about the kid that has comic possibilities. Maybe the worm has turned, I hope so because Weeds used to be really good.

I probably shouldn’t haven’t got such a kick out of the fat kid having killed U-Turn but there it is. As another poster noted previously, it wasn’t really funny but it was supremely satisfying.

The funny part was he was able to do it with his forearm. :)

Well, Weeds doesn't know how to kill people. I think this was the best kill of the show and I didn't like it. :)

Next week looks pretty interesting if you know what I mean ;)

i can't decide whether the show just jumped the shark or got off one it's been riding all season.

This was mostly good stuff in this week’s episode. They killed off U-Turn, and thank God for it! I'll second that!

I thought it was inevitable they had to kill off U-Turn as he was just too dark & controlling for the show. I had expected him to catch a bullet in the "war" started by Conrad & family, so at least the nature of U-Turn's demise was dramatically unexpected, to me anyway.

What were they doing hiking up that giant hill anyway? I missed what the purpose was, beyond killing off U-Turn of course.

U-Turn's demise should open up lots of good options for the show in the near future...

i can't decide whether the show just jumped the shark or got off one it's been riding all season.
i think it just got off one...the U-Turn story was getting very old. matter of fact, when we were watching this week's ep last night, my wife turned to me and said "i'm so done with this storyline"...and then bam! U-Turn was dead....weird.

What were they doing hiking up that giant hill anyway? I missed what the purpose was, beyond killing off U-Turn of course.

U-Turn's demise should open up lots of good options for the show in the near future...

U-Turn probably felt like he needed to be buffed up and in shape to help with the intimidation factor his job requires. There was a shot of him doing bicep curls. The run up the hill with his "team" was all part of that.

With the return of Andy from his military commitment, the totally unexpected demise of U-Turn, and the addition of the Majestic subplots, the show has been a lot more laugh-out-loud humorous the last two weeks. Some of the disgruntled are probably climbing back on board. Me, I never left; this show is wicked funny. :p

My girlfriend and I despised U-Turn since he was created but if you think about it.

A U-Turn is to well, reverse your direction.

He's a friend --- reverse --- He robs them (tries)

He's an enemy --- reverse --- He's DEAD! YES

Yes, killing UTurn was the writers taking a mulligan (intentional, or not) and thank goodness.

Nancy will probably bitch-slap his #2 into becoming her #2. She's gonna need him to unload that heroin - doubtful that Agrestic is gonna provide a good target market. :)

Modine's character isn't the greatest, but could improve as he's forced to get down and dirty. Mary Kate was a nice addition, her character is mesmerizing.
Yeah they had to kill Uturn. The show was just getting too unbelieveable. I thought it was a fun ride though. Also did Modine say sewage Canal??? Through the town?? an open channel?? I gotta tell you that would be highly illegal its probably deep gravity sanitary sewer which would have no real environmental impacts so that aspect doesnt fly either. You wouldnt need to clear more than a 20 foot wide area for it along the center of the pipe.

What were they doing hiking up that giant hill anyway? I missed what the purpose was, beyond killing off U-Turn of course.
:D
That was so weak.

Where was the Rocky music? First we have to see his ugly shirtless body curling weights… then he’s in a boxing ring—with her??? And...finally… he croaks jogging up the hill. :rolleyes: So friggin weak.

And why in the name of Pablo Escobar would he leave that trunk with her??? And why would she leave it so casually in her garage…with a house full of important people… after she already went through the experience of losing her entire inventory???? And why show her deranged brother-in-law? Whatever.

Yes, killing UTurn was the writers taking a mulligan (intentional, or not) and thank goodness..It’s not the first major Mulligan they pulled--Andy in the army—Andy out of the army.

Mary Kate was a nice addition, her character is mesmerizing.
I don’t know about her --yet. She seems like another way for them to mock, exploit, and spin God loving people.

I never left; this show is wicked funny. :pFunniest stuff was the cheap heroin / eggs joke... and the labeled golf balls through the window, otherwise I didn’t find too much laugh out loud wicked funny stuff.

I don’t know about her --yet. She seems like another way for them to mock, exploit, and spin God loving people.

But in a very nice wrapper. Based on what w've seen so far - if anything, church attendance would skyrocket. :D

But in a very nice wrapper.Speaking of wrapper… while I watched the episode last night and saw him offering her the smokes, I never heard of or saw that pack of rolling paper he had in his little tin. I googled it and it exists. Some kind of plant based all natural transparent rolling paper. They had the whole “Weeds” tie in on their home page too.

Forgot to check that out. "Naked Papers" or something like that. Clear wrapping papers - cool if you're into that sort of thing.

I don’t know about her --yet. She seems like another way for them to mock, exploit, and spin God loving people.

Why? She certainly seems very devout. Don't know why you'd have a problem with that. Perhaps your problem is you don't appreciate the inherent satire. The fundies have brought that on themselves with their aggressive push into politics, in decidedly unchristian fashion, in recent years. Institutional hypocrisy has always been a ripe subject for satire.

So far, it's still looking like Weeds peaked in Season 2. This season still doesn't seem to be "gelling" to me. The opening song intro still has been the best part of the show (besides the summer school murder mystery).

larry

Well, so far it (season 3) has been a mess with a few bright spots. But moving forward they seem positioned to get right back to their former glory with the addition of a substantial City Council storyline (more Nealon is more better :) ) and a trunk full of heroin throw into the mix. My hopes are high.

The fundies have brought that on themselves with their aggressive push into politics, in decidedly unchristian fashion, in recent years. Institutional hypocrisy has always been a ripe subject for satire.I guess everything is to the extreme on this show.;) It’s not a “spoon full” of H … It’s a steamer trunk full. It’s not a wacky Mr. Kotter influencing his students with his wacky ways… its Professor Mengala. That’s the way they do it.

I don’t think its open season on “the fundies” as you broadly call “them,” as much as it’s not on any other group. Sure it’s easy to get a laugh but I just hope they don’t pounce over the line. I wouldn’t want to see other religious groups, or other “types” of easy targets—mentally disabled, obese, physically impaired—etc. set up for an easy joke. Satire is always a great thing—it’s difficult to do it right.

more Nealon is more better Most definitely. We'll see what happens.

larry

Funniest stuff was the cheap heroin / eggs joke... and the labeled golf balls through the window, otherwise I didn’t find too much laugh out loud wicked funny stuff.
not even Mathew Modine? he had some good lines last night. i find him hysterical...especially when he's playing a smart-ass, like in Full Metal Jacket..."I wanted to travel to exotic Vietnam, the jewel of southeast Asia. I wanted to meet interesting people from an old and distinguished culture... and kill them. I wanted to be the first kid on my block with a confirmed kill"...classic.

I loved Doug's reversal in saving the shrew. His stuff is gold.

Why [does the casting of Mary-Kate Olson seem like another way for them to mock, exploit, and spin God loving people]? She certainly seems very devout. Don't know why you'd have a problem with that. Perhaps your problem is you don't appreciate the inherent satire. The fundies have brought that on themselves with their aggressive push into politics, in decidedly unchristian fashion, in recent years. Institutional hypocrisy has always been a ripe subject for satire.
I agree. Anyone who espouses political positions in emotional and opinionated terms risks being laughed at by others. Moreover, they and those who agree with them should learn to accept in good grace laughter from those who disagree. Think about it. :)

On another topic, I agree with those who liked Matthew Modine’s character in the latest episode. He has a lot of possibilities. I am looking forward to next week’s episode.

The whole religion thing is a bit too much shark jumping for me. Don't get me wrong, I love mocking the extreme religious nutjobs as much as the next person, but it's ground that has already been covered numerous times by other shows and it feels like a cheap way to get a few laughs without having to resort to actually coming up with new ideas.

The whole religion thing is a bit too much shark jumping for me. Don't get me wrong, I love mocking the extreme religious nutjobs as much as the next person, but it's ground that has already been covered numerous times by other shows and it feels like a cheap way to get a few laughs without having to resort to actually coming up with new ideas.
Yeah, there seems to be a consensus, here anyway, that the show has been way too heavy handed this year, at least for the most part. That’s why I was so relieved to see U-Turn pass from the scene.

That's funny. Don't like the heavy-handed parts - but liked U-Turn's passing (via a heavy hand). :)

I don’t know about her --yet. She seems like another way for them to mock, exploit, and spin God loving people.
Nah, it seems like they are satirizing the hypocrisy of allegedly chaste youth. You know the modern phenomena of doing everything but vaginal sex.

I guess I will have to disagree with the rest of you. I thought the killing of U-Turn was a mistake. Killing the DEA agent made more sense because he was boring and he was dragging down the show. U-Turn was hilarious and stole every scene he was in. I think they got rid of the character way to soon, but the way he went was surprising.

My biggest problem with god chick was the casting. They replace Silas's cute girlfriend from last year with the not cute Olsen chick.

My biggest problem with god chick was the casting. They replace Silas's cute girlfriend from last year with the not cute Olsen chick.

Different strokes, I suppose.

U-Turn was hilarious and stole every scene he was in.

He was an annoying distraction that prevented the plot from moving forward at all unless they were going to take the show to a much darker place.

I agree, that movie was already made.

He was an annoying distraction that prevented the plot from moving forward at all unless they were going to take the show to a much darker place.


yup, i really don't think the show going downhill from the moment he showed up was a coincidence.

it's time to get things back on track, in my opinion.

I guess I will have to disagree with the rest of you. I thought the killing of U-Turn was a mistake. Killing the DEA agent made more sense because he was boring and he was dragging down the show. U-Turn was hilarious and stole every scene he was in. I think they got rid of the character way to soon, but the way he went was surprising.

My biggest problem with god chick was the casting. They replace Silas's cute girlfriend from last year with the not cute Olsen chick.
I'm with you on both of these points, which I guess puts us in the solid minority here. U-Turn never bothered me. In fact, I really enjoyed the satiric take of the gansta/thug the show was attempting, albeit not too successfully. His interactions with his "boy" and his getting his own Prius were very funny to me. The problem for me this season is that, if the writers want to explore a darker side, then, in order to keep the show funny, they need to make those elements a little more over the top, instead of trying to keep everything firmly rooted in "realism" (whatever that may be for a show like this). For example, U-Turn's death should have been much more bizarre, maybe some ridiculous accident with his Prius, rather than the heavy-handed way it was done.

As for the Olsen girl, well, she is just plain annoying. And the DEA agent really needed to go. True, he introduced a needed conflict for the Nancy, but he was just so freakin' dull (and has been in everything else I seen him in). But, truth be told, the show only lights up for me anymore when Elizabeth Perkins or Kevin Nealon is on. Even Nancy is starting to grate.

I'm with you on both of these points, which I guess puts us in the solid minority here. U-Turn never bothered me. In fact, I really enjoyed the satiric take of the gansta/thug the show was attempting, albeit not too successfully. His interactions with his "boy" and his getting his own Prius were very funny to me. The problem for me this season is that, if the writers want to explore a darker side, then, in order to keep the show funny, they need to make those elements a little more over the top, instead of trying to keep everything firmly rooted in "realism" (whatever that may be for a show like this). For example, U-Turn's death should have been much more bizarre, maybe some ridiculous accident with his Prius, rather than the heavy-handed way it was done.

As for the Olsen girl, well, she is just plain annoying. And the DEA agent really needed to go. True, he introduced a needed conflict for the Nancy, but he was just so freakin' dull (and has been in everything else I seen him in). But, truth be told, the show only lights up for me anymore when Elizabeth Perkins or Kevin Nealon is on. Even Nancy is starting to grate.

It seems like a great minority group to be in. For me the main plot is Nancy as a drug dealer who gets in over her head. The rest of the stuff is just fluff,funny fluff but still fluff. For me the DEA stuff was much darker since it came with such a boring character that every time he showed up I wanted to fast forward.

Nice to see some postive feedback about the show. :p

Tonight is the season premier of CSI Miami.
Watch Weeds, then Califorication. Or DVR the showtime shows and catch the CSI Miami live.

Nice to see some postive feedback about the show. :p

Tonight is the season premier of CSI Miami.
Watch Weeds, then Califorication. Or DVR the showtime shows and catch the CSI Miami live.

DVR CSI Miami so you can skip the commercials.

Good point.

I also think the Showtime shows are better than CSI Miami. Also, they are 'un-edited' as CSI is a national public show.

My biggest problem with god chick was the casting. They replace Silas's cute girlfriend from last year with the not cute Olsen chick.

Silas's girlfriend Megan was better IMO.
Her real name is Shoshannah Stern.

MAN, that last part of tonight's of episode was EXCEPTIONALLY HOT!!!!

haha.

I also agree.

I enjoyed this week’s episode. It seems like the writers finally understand their characters. They were firing on all cylinders in perfect synch with their roles.

The opening at the funeral…
“He taught me how to drive by.”
“Respect.”:D

...And the scene in the kitchen when she discovered the girl is a virgin. That was great dialog…

..and of course Kevin Nealon. Classic line… “You know I have measured myself…”

…and the fat daughter is getting more and more like her mom...

...and hummus and revenge.... :p

Great stuff, very funny episode.:D

My biggest problem with god chick was the casting. They replace Silas's cute girlfriend from last year with the not cute Olsen chick.Who was Silas's girlfriend last year? (But no matter who it was, Olsen is more attractive. She is way hot.)

Who was Silas's girlfriend last year? (But no matter who it was, Olsen is more attractive. She is way hot.)

Wasn't it the deaf girl? Or was that the 1st year?

That was the first year.

This ep seems to continue the theme of a move to bring the show back a little closer to it's roots. Not sure where it'll go from here, but it seems like they have the opportunity to back away from some of the over-the-top stuff that's been going on this season.

i thought the show bounced back very nicely this week, not as dark and very funny.

gotta agree about the last scene, very hot. off topic but californication was super hot this week, even hotter than weeds.

a threesome with the wife and the secretary, yummy. :p

Yeah, they're working their way back to light hearted satire that it was in the beginning. Loved Kevin Nealon and truly loved that last scene!

I agree that Weeds has its groove back. From finding it so bad, I was tempted to cancel my TiVo Season Pass, it has improved so dramatically over the past couple of episodes that I am now looking forward to seeing what comes next week. I thought the way in which Nancy maneuvered the rival gangbangers into convincing Marvin to forgive Nancy’s debt was a hoot. That was almost as much fun as seeing U-Turn get his had been.

This was by far the best episode of the season. The key is that Nancy is now back in control. Nancy is our "hero" and it is no fun when she is not on top (except for Modine's character). I also like that they have brought more of Shane into the show. He is a gas.

Very good episode - afraid for a minute there that they were introducing U-Turn #2 - but they got out of that quickly.

I assume Agrestic is part of the territory claimed by the Mexicans?

Very good episode - afraid for a minute there that they were introducing U-Turn #2 - but they got out of that quickly.

I assume Agrestic is part of the territory claimed by the Mexicans?

I also thought we were gonna have U-Turn #2.

That is a good point, how is is Nancy gonna continue her business if the Mexicans own the land.

I also like that they have brought more of Shane into the show. He is a gas.
I like Shane a lot, too. When Shane called himself a “liberal Jew,” I howled. In his exchanges with his fundamentalist teacher and classmates, his lines are usually smart and funny. I can’t wait to see the development of the relationship between Shane, the pretty girl with whom he is clearly smitten, and Celia’s daughter, Isabelle.

I guess I will have to disagree with the rest of you. I thought the killing of U-Turn was a mistake.

This will sound odd, but I just came back from vacation and was glad to find that U-Turn was dead. More Doug Wilson!

Shoshannah(now on Jericho) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Olsen munchkins

Shoshannah(now on Jericho) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Olsen munchkins

Truer words have never been spoken.

Shoshannah(now on Jericho) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both Olsen munchkins
If you're talking weight, sure.

If you're talking hotness, no way.

Wasn't it the deaf girl? Or was that the 1st year?


Silas' GF in the 1st season was Celia's older daughter. He was with the deaf girl in the 2nd season.

Bioth of them were far more attractive (IMO) than that Olsen munchkin.

Silas' GF in the 1st season was Celia's older daughter. He was with the deaf girl in the 2nd season.

Bioth of them were far more attractive (IMO) than that Olsen munchkin.

Celia's daughter was named Quinn Hodes, her real name is Haley Hudson.
More attractive and a better role in the series, IMO.