Its good. But White Christmas will always be their most kinoest episode

>to the Manson family?
They didn't target tradfams, they targeted rich urban Hollywood insiders who were probably swingers, what does the Manson Family have to do with traditional families what between lines am I missing?

>seclusion
Not really a tradfam thing, if they were really tradfam, they would have several kids instead of 1.

> My point is that he still trusted David with his life
He had to and he was mostly pushed to trust, its not like he came up with the idea to share the robot on his own, they were the only two men on a two man mission where both men were critical.

>everyone around him is part of the same worldview he is and will adhere to the same rules
The only person around him is the second man in a two man mission who is critical to his survival from before the film even started.

>David did take advantage of it.
Yea and it really fricked the mission, the implication that they will both die as the movie ends because the trust between the critical members of the mission had been severed.

>the story should have been way less interesting because that way it would make more sense to my boring logical plothole obsessed autism
Don't ever write.

shut up homosexual shills, I see you.

>hair splitting
Nothing you have said is related to the traditional family unit, though.

>how the Manson murders affected society
See not related to traditional family unit.

>That is an extremely stupid thing to say.
No, traditional families aren't made of a single mom raising one son while the husband is off in space. I don't understand how any of your critiques are related to exposing traditionalism as a crock of shit.

>It was literally Cliff's idea.
It was literally his wife's idea.

>I'll just let him have time alone with my lonely wife
So you are saying he wasn't actually trad since he was breaking the Pence rule and letting his wife be alone with another man?

>Beside the point.
No, its exactly why he was forced to trust the other guy, they were trapped in the mission, if they didn't work together they both die.

No, you literally haven't exposed anything about traditionalism, you have only pointed out that it is bad to be victimized by a cult or leave your wife with other men or run off to space leaving only a robot behind.

No, you haven't, you talked about completely different things than traditionalism.

You say Manson family has something to do with traditional family unit because they are completely the opposite and scared tradfams with their murder spree, you are not making any sense and haven't pointed out any way that the episode was suppose to be some major critique against traditional families.

No because trad families weren't the only type of person that got scared by the antics of the Manson Family, it was mostly urban swingers who invited people like that to their swinging hollywood parties.

No he did it to stoke a race war because he hated the legal system and none of that goes anyway to proving that the episode is approving of the cult's actions and inferring the traditional family is a crock of shit because they were stupid enough to be killed by a cult of tards.

Its your argument get mad at yourself if you think its as stupid as the rest of us do.

So then how do people who murdered traditional families and scared other families prove that traditional families are a crock of shit because they can be murdered and scared?

That has nothing to do with traditional family or the manson family, it has to do with being forced into a working relationship where trust is tantamount.

>Show about the distopian use of technology
>Hey how about we make a critique of the 60s family stereotype for the nth time in modern drama series instead
Its shit.

mentally moronic, probably

>the astronauts mind-link with robotic replicas who assume their family duties while they're away in outer space
yeah not science fiction at all

There's nothing distopian about it. Its just a means to an end. But if you can't read what I posted you probably can't understand a 55 minute episode.

>the astronauts mind-link with robotic replicas who assume their family duties while they're away in outer space
yeah not science fiction at all

>ok, so no critique yet.
No, just the previous fifty attempts in this thread that failed to penetrate your void-like cranium.
>it is a failure of him to empathize with someone whose life was destroyed
The way the patriarch of a traditional family would. Because they aren't into touchy feely stuff like empathy, emotion, therapy, trauma, etc.
>if the guy was in a hippie cult and some traditional family came to murder his entire cult while he was in space
Yes, the episode would be different if it was different. Very good.
>its a story about grief not tradition
It's so weird that you think it can't be both. It's about a lot of things. It's also about loneliness.
>If they actually had a trad senpai with dozens of kids, she wouldn't be isolated and alone
Actually a person can feel alone even when surrounded by family. She literally says she feels more alone when he's there than when he's gone IN the fricking episode. You just didn't get it, admit it to yourself if not to me.
>the leaving her alone with a robot that really fractured the relationship
It was fractured before the stuff with the robots. She says so. She says moving out there in the first place wasn't what she wanted.
>no amount of trying to change the subject to a different movie
You really think I brought up The Terminator because I was hoping we'd start talking about The Terminator and forget all about Black Mirror? That's idiotic. It was an ANALOGY. Look up what that word means. Referencing something else to make a point is not against the rules, you fricking weirdo.

>No you have attempted to side step and change the subject every time because you can't actually blame any of the events on traditional family.
No, I've explained what should be a pretty simple concept to you approximately a dozen different ways and you refuse to understand it. You're such a weird brain damaged autist that you don't even know how analogies work and somehow think that using an analogy in a discussion is "changing the subject".
>If they were both cult leaders in a two man mission and one lost the cult while the other didn't, it would play out the exact same way.
No it wouldn't. It would be a completely different story.
>I said the outcome would be the same, though, because it is not a critique of traditional family, it is a story of grief.
No, if you change major components of a story it does not stay the same. That's what "change" means.
>which is a type of grief
Not necessarily, no. Are you seriously arguing a story can only be about one thing at a time?
>The house was brand new, they didn't move there before the robot.
There is clear evidence of wear and tear on the roof that David incorporates into his painting.

>the story should have been way less interesting because that way it would make more sense to my boring logical plothole obsessed autism
Don't ever write.

I don't like any Star Wars because I'm not a child.

jokes on you, pal. that post was mine to begin with. you have every right to interpret this episode as you please. But trying to convince others or even calling them dumb for not sharing your view is just low. I don't get why EVERYTHING these days has to be about modern politics. Just let this story stand on its own. The only puzzling thing for me is the inclusion of the cult and tbh I'm quite sure they only did that for the trailer because americans fricking love him for some reason. You could argue it's about god in space and humans on earth, you can argue it's about how humans evolve and for some this evolution goes way too fast and they are scared by it. But making traditional families look bad? I really never saw that for one minute. The only thing you could argue is the time it's set in and that wives didn't really have a say in anything. But nowhere did this episode say "traditional family values bad" or that one of the men is gay. That is really projection.

why are you so mindbroken? why do you hate families and straight people? you should seek help

out of curiosity why should he be gay? because he listens to french music? because he is an artist? prejudice much.
if that's what the episode was about for you, then be it. the best thing about shows like black mirror is the discussion about it afterwards anyway. But I really cannot follow your conclusions on this one. But I'll say on a side note that everyone not getting the ending or calling it bad was truly filtered. it was one of the best endings in a movie or show ever for me.

if every man who didn't touch his wife or knew how to please her was gay, damn. 80% of men would be gay then. joking

yes, this episode was incredibly good and everyone coming up with "why didn't they send the androids to space" and "that ending sucked" are either too young or lack abstract thinking that's for sure. They should watch "easier" shows instead.

Which means I *don't* fit in a room full of them. You know, the exact opposite of what you said.

see

Wow, you have such poor reading comprehension that you couldn't even follow that statement, huh? That's really sad. Yes, it's not remotely egotistical for me to say I'm smarter than you. It's like saying a mailman is smarter than a sea sponge.

It IS there for everyone to see, so everyone can see how you hilariously somehow completely misinterpreted something so boneheadedly simple.

I said I didn't belong in a room full of dumbasses because I'm not a dumbass. You are really fricking bad at this.

The post is indeed there. So anyone who is inclined can see that I am right and you are wrong. I said I'm the smartest when I'm in a room full of dumbasses, not that I'm ONLY the smartest when I'm in a room full of dumbasses. Again, reading comprehension is important.

You mean the one where I said I was the smartest in a room full of dumbasses?

I said nothing about belonging in it, you pulled that out of your ass. Yes, everyone thinks they're the smartest, but I happen to be right.

No, I didn't. All I said was that I was smartest in a room full of dumbasses. You interpreted a very general statement in an extremely specific, and incorrect, way.

>you said you were in it
which doesn't mean I belong there
>you gave your exact rank
Which is #1. Which says nothing about what my rank would be in a different room of different intelligence. You are so bad at this that I'm beginning to think you're that other autistic person in the thread who can't grasp basic themes and story and has been trying to get me to explain subtext to him for the past two hours

>You definitively belong if you are ranked.
That makes absolutely no sense. If you have a list of shitty movies and one good movie and you rank the good movie as #1 qualitatively that doesn't mean that it is also shitty. That means that it is the least shitty.
>How did you get that rank
Because I'm the only one in the room who is not a dumbass.

>So in addition to being the #1 dumbass, you are also the #1 shitty person in the room?
Jesus, you just keep lowering the bar on reading comprehension, don't you?
>Its a room full of dumbasses, you are obviously a dumbass if they let you into the room let alone ranked you as the #1 dumbass.
Hmmm I didn't realize that Cinemaphile had a bouncer who would turn away anyone who wasn't a dumbass. I wonder how I managed to sneak in? It's almost like anyone can post here, and in a room full of dumbasses, I would be the most intelligent by virtue of not being a dumbass?

I made sure everyone knew I didn't belong there because I'm not a dumbass. That's why I would be ranked smartest in a room full of dumbasses.

>saying that you are smartest in a room full of dumbasses means that you are a dumbass because there are these rooms that exist and they are labelled "dumbasses" and "smart people" and it's physically impossible for both to occupy the same space at the same time
Yes I guess by some manner of abstract quantum entanglement I somehow ended up in a room with people who are of an inferior intelligence, which means in a ranking of intellect, I am ranked highest.

I didn't say I was #1 dumbass, I said I was #1 in terms of intelligence, which is not an impressive feat when you are surrounded by dumbasses. And you have proven my point, seeing as how you're so insanely stupid that you have spent the last two hours failing to grasp a simple statement without resorting to bizarre incoherent leaps of logic to try to make some esoteric nonsensical point about rooms specifically reserved for dumbasses while ignoring the obvious implication that you are also calling yourself a dumbass by implication

I never said I was the #1 dumbass. If there is a #1 dumbass, it is unquestionably you. I'm not aware there is such a thing as a dumbass containment room, but if there was, you would certainly be admitted and I would not.

No. I did not. I brought up that I was in a room, that the room had dumbasses in it, and that I would be ranked #1 in terms of intelligence, because I am more intelligent than a dumbass. Everything else was shit you made up because you tried to outsmart me while failing to realize you don't possess the required equipment.

While we're making shit up, you told me that you eat your own feces and that it is a sacred delicacy in some cultures.

By all means, do so.

Anon, I'm afraid you seem to be mistaken. You linked to a post in which I said "I'm the smartest when I'm in a room full of dumbasses." There was nothing said about the room having this dumbass exclusivity you speak of, no mention of my belonging there, that I hang out in rooms explicitly reserved for dumbasses (if such things even theoretically exist), or any mention that I'm ranked in terms of my stupidity rather than my intelligence, or anything of the sort. The statement clearly indicated that I'm smartest in a room full of dumbasses by virtue of not being a dumbass, I mean a child could see that. It's as clear as day. So I'm still waiting on the evidence you promised. Do take your time, though. I'm a patient man. It's one of the many perks of a powerful intellect.

No, the word "full of" does not imply exclusivity. If you say "This house is full of mosquitoes!" that does not imply that you are also a mosquito. You can be a person, who is not a mosquito, in a room full of mosquitos. Only some kind of cretin or lunatic would assume that you were self-identifying as a mosquito if you said such a thing, or that you were claiming the room was exclusively a labelled "mosquito room." That would be pure insanity, in fact.

I understand the problem now, you don't have any ideas what words mean. I see how that could be a big problem for sure, but your first step is to stop taking it out on other people.

The only #1 dumbass here is you. Know how I know? I made a simple, easily understood comment about even a reasonably smart person being top of the pyramid when surrounded by stupid people approximately two hours ago and you were so deeply confused by it that you are still reeling to this very moment, and STILL don't understand it even though it's been explained more times than I care to count. You got BTFO, harder than anyone I've ever seen, and you are clinging on in the desperate hope that you can save face if you hang in there long enough. You won't, and you can't. Cope and seethe.

>couldn't answer the question
Exactly. It doesn't fit the character.

>You don't understand what good and bad writing are.
But I do. It was an attempt to be an edgy twist.
Even an insane person would realize he gains nothing by killing the family, only loses.
You're jumping through hoops to try to justify something that was insanely stupid.

Yeah why do people murder people when they don't get anything for it and there's such a huge risk for being caught? Not to mention complete alienation from the rest of society? Man, reality is really poorly written.

You guys are confusing a mentally ill black man on drugs' behavior vs a normal dude who has been tested.
Just because there are instances of crazy murders, doesn't mean it can be used in any situation.

Why did he kill the family?
because they wanted to be edgy.
Not because it makes sense or fits the character.

That's the truth.

So you can't argue back so you gotta argue something else?

Then why are you missing the point and not addressing that?

>certain criteria causes people to be more likely to be murder for no good reason, which doesn't fit this character
>"oh, but there were white killers you know"
WHO is moving the goalposts?

No, anon. No one said that.

Andrei Chikatilo
Ed Gein
Jeffrey Dahmer
John Wayne Gacy
Ted Bundy
Gary Ridgway
Samuel Little
Richard Kuklinski
Christopher Duntsch
Stephen Paddock
Joseph DeAngelo
Harold Shipman
H.H. Holmes

Those aren't even all white or black guys, so I don't even understand the point of the post other than listing random serial killers.

>blacks are the most common race in serial killings
>wait how does providing a massive list of every prolific serial killer in history, none of whom are black, relevant?
Yeah that's a real head scratcher.

Your point is basically that the ending of the episode is unrealistic because white people never do bad things. It's an incredibly stupid point to make and egg on my face I guess for trying to address it rather than just ignoring it outright like I should have.

>Also, post your hand.

Why are you taking the bait?

Writing is not contrived simply because a character did something you wouldn't do.

Writing is not contrived simply because a character did something you wouldn't do.

Oh I wasn't whoever you were arguing with, I just think the writing is contrived, every scenario in this show is written for no other reason than it wouldn't be a story otherwise. If polished further they'd be great but they're not meant to be great, they're meant to be digested by the lowest common denominator.

NTA but my thoughts exactly, the writing is extremely contrived, they have to come up with these huge things to justify the story they want to tell. first the guy's family is eliminated, then he begins an affair, then a revenge murder. these are all huge, complex cans of worms that even individually would justify an entire book of plot but they're all smooshed together in a plot where they have no business being together just so the writers can get from A to B, as soon as I saw it I thought they'd better have a good reason for having this, because I could see how contrived the writing had gotten, and waddaya know? they didn't, the portrayal of his grief was totally unconvincing, a few scenes of him grieving before they swiftly move on to him being in a clear enough headspace to be making suave moves on the guy's wife.
This plot of this one relies on there being two psychopaths present to move the story along, because the writing is psychopathic and doesn't understand real human emotions. This episode has nothing to say about grief or relationships, it's just a second rate mystery? thriller? drama? i don't even know, but whatever it is it's crap.

please tell me how he goes from grieving, thankful to his crewmate to having moved on from the loss in the space of weeks, and then to murderous rage and indignation. how is that not psychopathic? even leaving out the murder he would be a complete sociopath. just not how human beings behave, because this isn't a show that's interested in exploring that, it's just a vehicle to deliver some gimmicky concept and a cheap twist ending

how can you say he hasn't moved on when he's pursuing another relationship, not just that but with someone he's got no prior history with, and someone who he is breaking major social codes to pursue, strategically planning it, emphatically defending himself and psychoanalysing the other guy's relationship to attack him back. this is supposedly a guy that's racked with grief, shame and guilt?
this writing is crap

Yes its normal for them to rush into relationships then kill them all when it doesnt work out never mind that he had children and wife of his own killed months ago. You live in clown world, where this is true?? Do you have evidence of this happening anywhere?

Yes post evidence of a man who has his family all killed, then he goes on to fall in love with another woman with children of her own, who he later murders them all out of some grief. I'm calling out your bullshit where such things are common. And the man has to be normal, show me your writing is not entirely schizo and is rooted in reality.

Yes i'm arguing like that because its schizo rambling writing, No apparently normal man behaves like this. And its not just any character, we have a character and we have his history outlined and we have his motivations. The director could have shown him as a psycho but chose to be moronic and show a normal man with a normal family who btw is supposed to pass some sort of psych evaluation before going to space fall in love and murder a woman and her child literally months after his family is killed. Yes this is very believable, continue with your moronic schizo plotlines.

I told you i think its bad writing because the director has all the power to show us consistency. If you had chris watts history in a film, it would show his past action and motivations and reveal him to be a psycho way before he did all he did. That's the entire point of making films, showing all angles of a story. And that's the license the director has over his original stories with original characters. Instead he chose to make a normal man do a completely moronic thing and wants us to believe it ,stay quiet and congratulate him for his supposed genius.

>oh he wasn't entirely ready? why don't you go and show me how that's the case then, because I didn't watch a show about a guy who is an emotional mess
Yes you did, you were just too stupid to pick up on it despite it being obvious. The show assumed that if it showed him attempting suicide and then fast forwarded a few weeks that you would not assume "Oh, he smiled and they went to a bookstore, he must be all better now." In your case it gave you far too much credit, it seems.
>The show doesn't treat such huge emotional turmoil with any kind of sophistication or depth at all
It does, actually. It just doesn't tell you how to feel about it, and you aren't used to that.
>Nobody going through such great and terrible grief would be able to pull off the kind of narcissistic rage that guy pulled off
I would argue most people displaying narcissistic rage do so because they are in some kind of terrible pain. Or are you arguing that only someone who is a literal narcissist with no empathy at all could ever hurt another human being? Because that definitely indicates you have never left your house.
>going through something like that would utterly destroy someone
Which we are explicitly shown
>a broken man like that wouldn't be able to coherently defend himself or dress the guy down for his relationship in such a sly way without being severely emotionally conflicted
First of all, he was very clearly emotionally conflicted about it, and second of all, to allege that everyone who goes through grief or shame reacts identically is just idiotic.

Give up man this guy is either an inexperienced zoomer or a brainlet that doesn't understand the necessity of consistency of narratives in well written stories. Imagine if a man were to come into your house and kill your entire family, would you chalk it to him being a pyscho or would you want to understand the consistency of motivation. Heck even the police need this so that they can run a successful trial. Its not so much that he is a psycho as much as it is that the director has license to explain it to us but choses not to and gets praised by brainlets of how good the writing is. Its almost like praising god for keeping you ignorant about the character of the people in his universe. Everyone just randomly spergs out with no apparent consistency.

It doesn't depend on anything. Watching a drama or interacting in life. People watch films because the narratives are consistent with their lives. People read books because they see themselves in the characters. When you present an inconsistent narrative it makes people frustrated and cheated. When you have all the power to create characters with consistent motivations but choose not to, it comes out as bad writing. That's why people hate strong women who beat up guys twice their size, thats why people hate le woke culture and the Black personization of hollywood because its not consistent with reality. When you start making excuses for the director who has infinite power over his film universe then you understand that he made a bad film.

The narratives are not different in any meaninful way. A person who is married watching another character divorcing is not the same as a person who is married watching a character who is portrayed as normal kill another man's family. The former is completely normal because the film has established a consistency that this guy is married therefore this guy can get divorced, vs this guy is normal therefore this guy has killed an entire family. There is a logical inconsistency in the latter and that you can't see it makes me think you are a brainlet. The premises in this show are not enough to make the conclusion that this show makes valid.

>Black Mirror can have an episode in which an otherwise good man does something truly reprehensible and horrible, something he can never take back, and nothing will ever be the same
Yes if there's consistency of narrative. If you can go back and look at his reasons for doing so. Being a depressed normal man is not enough reason to kill an entire family. You have to show more of this and establish some sort of consistent motivation chain. That's what separates good writing from bad writing. Either convince us he was a psycho all along and fill gaps in the chain or have him become a psycho before killing the entire family, that's what consistency is, otherwise you might as well make him a fish at this point because of artistic license, once day he is a man in space, the next he is a fish in someone's dinner table because artistic license is supposed to exist outside the causality consistency chain.

Its not what happened at least not believably so. What we saw before was a depressed normal man, thats what any psychiatrist will tell you. He did not show any signs of psychosis, there are clear signs of psychosis that an investigator can look to to explain someone's behaviour, this episode ignores them all and skips to the murder.

There are no signs of murderous intent before. Heck there's nothing to go back on that the director who has free reign over the episode can show us.

We can replace the fish with a cultural reference that is not familiar in the west, will you then be able to appreciate the artistic license when consistency is broken to an frustratingly alien degree?

Lol you can't tell how the insertion of an alien tangent reference breaks consistency in the same way that a normal man with zero murderous intent murders an entire family

Lol brainlet can't see the similarity in structure of narrative, yea i think you need to read more about film literature

NTA but you got filtered and should watch other shows

>Where's the evidence that it's calculated in any sense?
because he explains himself that he made his move based on observing her and figuring out she's lonely and there are issues in the marriage he can exploit
>He gets confronted for his behavior and out of shame and desperation he defends himself with the first thing he can think of. People do that. If you don't think people do that, it's because you don't know people. You are literally coming up with headcanon and then getting upset that it isn't realistic even though it isn't remotely what happened in the show.
you say he's *clearly* conflicted, yet where's the evidence of that? all you've pointed to is something that was many scenes ago which seems totally out of step with how he acts later, he doesn't continue in how he acted then, one minute he is despondent, the next minute he's ready to fly in to an expertly reasoned impeachment of a guy who has shown him no ill will, who he has acted in a totally indefensible way towards.
>a conflicted person panics and jumps on the offensive rather than admit their wrongdoing
he doesn't seem that panicked, he didn't start tripping over his words or anything, he didn't even show any signs of being conflicted privately either, because he wasn't conflicted, and the show ended with him believing he killed the guy's family because he deserved it, where's the conflict where he drags the chair out for him like a spoiled brat kid?
>also horribly misguided.
let him brood alone in a lonely space station, or give him some therapeutic contact with friends. seems like a no-brainer to me

>Again, the suicide attempts, the lack of personal hygiene, crying in front of a stranger's wife, these are all red flags
He can be depressed without being a murderous psycho. There's nothing shown so far that leads us to believe that he kills people when depressed.

Psychology is pretty well developed anon that it has good scientific reasons why people behave the way they do. There's tonnes of data to explain people's behaviours, their motivations, etc. It might not be able to cure mental illness but it has a scientific causality relationship btn motivation and action.

Police do this all the time. They have forensic psychiatrists for a reason.

Thats not what i said. There can be evidence collected the jury ultimately has to decide. Its not the same as saying that theres evidence that a person had murderous intent, juries convict people who become repeat offenders all the time, they are not the arbiters of truth

No it does, if the narrative is consistent, the jury ultimately makes the decision despite any evidence. That doesn't prove that the psychiatrist never provided any explanation, it just says that the jury either ignores or accepts it

Yea trust le director and not actual scientists who have tonnes of data on human state of mind. Right anon i can see why you don't interact with people in real life

Science is predictive. Using knowledge about human state of mind, they can make predictions about whether what they do next is probable.

This is forensic psychology, it explains what happened, it doesn't diagnose and prescribe. The vast majority of people have some previous incident that can explain escalation to the degree of murder. This episode does not show any such incident, like i repeatedly tell you, there's no murderous intent displayed in the show

Margin of error doesn't work without evidence you moronic homosexual. How do you explain murder without evidence of murderous intent and call it margin of error. Who taught you critical thinking you stupid brainlet.

Yes we would if we had data on their mental states prior to murder. Forensic psychiatry usually gathers data after you moronic homosexual, how can you not see this?

You are moronic stupid brainlet. There's no way to monitor states of minds of everyone to any accurate degree 24/7. heck its not even legal. Come up with something better or shut your moronic schizo mouth.

Yes thats why we do it after and thats why forensic psychiatry exist in the first place. Now have you understood after 400 replies you schizo brainlet.

>The vast majority of people have some previous incident that can explain escalation
seeing your whole family getting murdered by a cult while bein in space and not being able to do anything to stop it

you MUST be joking

at least I didn't get filtered, moron

That's not murderous intent you homosexual. That's loss and usually leads to suicide not murder. Suicidal tendency is not murderous intent.

>people are ONLY suicidal or they are HOMICIDAL and there is NO OVERLAP EVER because life is a VIDEO GAME
You have definitely never been outside in your life.

>Like i said those are two different motivations that never overlap without a clear explanation.
That is moronic. You are entirely beyond hope.
>we never see this happen with normal well adjusted people.
Yeah except crazy people and normal well adjusted people look the same until they kill somebody, that's why it's such a societal problem you FRICKING sweet summer child

chris watts is a family annihilator and there are different types of them but all have one thing in common: they are all narcissists. many find his case extremely puzzling and I don't think he would have killed anyone in his life time if 1. he had married another women and 2. didn't have the affair. he was always standing out and clearly autistic or lacked empathy in general. he married the first woman who took him and their marriage was absolute hell. I don't want to victim blame here, but chris was a shy and private person who could not express himself well and his wife was as plastic and fake as you can imagine, always bossing him around and making everything in their life public. she was condescending and all his anger, which he clearly had bottled up, as he is an introvert and that's how they work. then he met this girl who fits him way better, likes what he does and is just easy to be around for him and the only thing he could think about was getting out of his life which was hell to him. he could have just left, but in his narcissistic mind he wanted total freedom an to truly start anew without anything holding him back. only a pschopath can do what he did. but there are many psychopaths who never kill anybody. So it was the perfect storm in this case. the case is not a puzzle anymore.
never marry someone too soon.

Hereditary and The Lighthouse are both really great movies anon and they have substance to spare. I wonder if you have ever considered that maybe the problem is you.

>He made his move because he was a broken man consumed by loneliness, and he justified his shameful behavior to himself after the fact because people do that.
you don't just move on weeks after your family gets annihilated in front of your eyes while you scream and start rizzing your friend's wife

he justified it because the writing sucks and apparently charlie brooker thinks that's normal
>I dunno, have you tried watching the episode?
so that's a no then
>How do you know he is no longer despondent? Is it because he showed a modicum of joy for a split second? Despondent people can do that.
more like he continued to act like he was entitled to sleep with that guys wife, pursuing her and killed her when he couldn't have her
>Again, the suicide attempts, the lack of personal hygiene, crying in front of a stranger's wife, these are all red flags
>he's clearly feeling guilty for pursuing a married woman and talk her in to cheating because he tried to kill himself and didn't shower before he even laid eyes on her or spoke to her
LOL
>Your interpretation, not mine
pretty obvious that he pulls up a chair to say welcome to my world
>Not a bad idea. I wouldn't have minded a scene where they try that and it doesn't really work, so they have to attempt something more drastic. That's the first decent idea you've had yet.
i'm talking about having him chill with the wife you moronic sassy homosexual

nta, but I think you are too invested in your own head canon of the characters. There is a story here about a narcissist with the perfect life who loses everything and starts going after the one remaining women in his life who is married to the only guy he has contact with. Things happen.

>There is a story here about a narcissist with the perfect life who loses everything and starts going after the one remaining women in his life who is married to the only guy he has contact with.
the story isn't supposed to have him be a narcissist, it's just poorly written so he ends up acting like one. if there was a story to tell about him being a narcissist then it would affect the way he handles and deals with the grief.

Writing has the fit the character. Also, Nasa totally would vet people psychologically as well

>murdering a family which only causes harm, even to yourself
>'unwise'
It was a stupid attempt as a twist for no good reason.

calling that unwise is quite an euphemism.
They are astronauts, they are not some random Black person from the hood.

Wanting to frick your friend's wife is quite normal, and unwise, so far, I bought that. I did not saw him falling into madness, that would explain what he did.
Sadness, depression, envy and resentment, ok I saw it. Trauma, not much actually, but I can admit it. Now, was his facial hair and goatee supposed to convey madness? What a good writing that would be...
I simply can't buy an astronaut making such harm to his only teammate, and himself once the mission will be over, only from his trauma and resentment.
If you can enjoy what I would call badly written story because "hell, humanity!", good for you, but I need more

Indeed. See for reference this guy:

>If anything it made him a target.
He was a target because of the use of advanced technology, not the traditional life he cultivated outside of his high tech job.

>He knew his wife wasn't happy and wanted a different life
Because he left her alone with a robot simulacrum that couldn't even be intimate.

>He even goes out into space
Spacewalks are related to tradlife how?

> a thing would never even occur to him.
No, he didn't consider it because if something happened to him the other guy would be fricked since its a two man mission and both men are critical.

>to the Manson family?
They didn't target tradfams, they targeted rich urban hollywood insiders who were probably swingers, what does the Manson Family have to do with traditional families what between lines am I missing?

>seclusion
Not really a tradfam thing, if they were really tradfam, they would have several kids instead of 1.

> My point is that he still trusted David with his life
He had to and he was mostly pushed to trust, its not like he came up with the idea to share the robot on his own, they were the only two men on a two man mission where both men were critical.

>everyone around him is part of the same worldview he is and will adhere to the same rules
The only person around him is the second man in a two man mission who is critical to his survival from before the film even started.

>David did take advantage of it.
Yea and it really fricked the mission, the implication that they will both die as the movie ends because the trust between the critical members of the mission had been severed.

>hair splitting
Nothing you have said is related to the traditional family unit, though.

>how the Manson murders affected society
See not related to traditional family unit.

>That is an extremely stupid thing to say.
No, traditional families aren't made of a single mom raising one son while the husband is off in space. I don't understand how any of your critiques are related to exposing traditionalism as a crock of shit.

>It was literally Cliff's idea.
It was literally his wife's idea.

>I'll just let him have time alone with my lonely wife
So you are saying he wasn't actually trad since he was breaking the Pence rule and letting his wife be alone with another man?

>Beside the point.
No, its exactly why he was forced to trust the other guy, they were trapped in the mission, if they didn't work together they both die.

No, you literally haven't exposed anything about traditionalism, you have only pointed out that it is bad to be victimized by a cult or leave your wife with other men or run off to space leaving only a robot behind.

Yes, also The Terminator is about a nice lady being chased by an evil robot and there is absolutely no subtext, symbolism or social commentary of any kind. You daft c**t.

You don't understand how analogies work either? Exactly how far along the spectrum are you? You're on very thin ice, I'm about to just assume for your sake that this is an elaborate troll.

That's on you. I've been more than patient with you and I've provided far more thorough explanation than is necessary. I can't explain subtext to someone for whom subtext is clearly a completely foreign concept, and THAT was the point of my Terminator comment by the way. The amount of potent autism it takes to respond to someone bringing up another film to make a point by saying "But that's a completely different movie!" is actually kind of hilarious.

Except he clearly didn't since he was so mad that making a painting didn't magically fix everything.

No you see characters can't ever do things that are a bad idea! It's unrealistic!

Lol so everyone who is jealous becomes a murderer in your experience, you live in such a world where all men deprived of women murder the women and their children. I'm starting to think i'm arguing with a moronic zoomer who has no experience interacting with people.

There is no reason to think he would be a murderer moron.. The shows job is to show this to us. You might as well argue that jesse pinkman actor is a murderer or anyone else in the show for that matter. He was a grieving guy, that is no reason to kill an entire family, that's not how humans behave. They only included that for shock value and its not very believable because it conveys no meaningful message. You might as well start the show skip to the middle and then watch the end without understanding the motivations of the guy murdering the family were. Its that bad, there's no continuity of narrative, no consistency of motivation no realistic exectution.

He is not pushed by anyone. Nobody has a gun to his head telling him to kill. The film does not show this. If anything the other guy has more reason to kill him because of touching his wife than the other guy does of killing his entire family. No you dont assuming you arent a moronic zoomer who has watched 20 films his entire life and doesn't understand how films convey the consistency of motivations.

>There's no reason to think he wouldn't either.
yes there is because regular people aren't murderers that would annihilate another man's family, especially not someone who has shown them kindness and tried to get them through a tough time
>The entire episode shows his progression
the episode has a plot that makes no sense, no justification for any of these emotions, he goes from being an emotional wreck to being suave and pursuing companionship in the space of weeks without even considering to justify how he's able to move on so fast and put all of what happened behind him

>again it's almost like you can't tell who the murderers are just by looking at them, crazy I know
the show has already made me suspend my disbelief by having one random murderer show up. do it again and I'm not watching a story about how a psychopath deals with grief after an encounter with another psychopath, i'm just watching a poorly written story that makes use of contrivances.
>clearly very unhappy
because of normal marital issues that are none of his business? stick your nose in to anybody's marriage and you'll find pedestrian issues like intimacy problems, you would be fooling yourself to justify cheating with that, you would be sociopathic to justify cheating when you're friends with the woman's husband, and you'd be an inhuman psycho to murder over it, it's a completely incomprehensible action
>desperately needy emotional wreck who is so lonely and desperate that he comes onto another person's wife
he doesn't act like a desperate person and there's no conflict at all within him

>I know! More than one murderer?! In the WORLD? This really is science fiction!!!
when they keep showing up and their actions are indicative that they're there just to serve some kind of plot point, it comes off as bad writing instead of some kind of american psycho-esque insight in to the psychopathic mind.
>That seems like a very convenient, infantile view of humanity. Or to put it another way, since people do incomprehensibly horrible things every day, it's simply incorrect to say it's unrealistic.
the word i used is incomprehensible, not unrealistic. my point being that in a psychodrama like this I expect to be able to understand why people do what they do
>And all the characters around him talking about how hopeless, lost and destroyed he is?
until he stops acting like that, does a total 180 and starts romancing the housewife of his crewmate and acting like an unconflicted, entitled jerk

>I think it is extremely limiting to drama to make any rules, really, but particularly the rule that you can only depict characters who are "normal" and who "only do normal things".
it's what I expect because if you're showing me a drama about characters then the story lies within their motivation and sussing out what people are doing any why they do it. that doesn't preclude going against that and introduce erratic people or people who are mentally ill, I'm just stating that's what I expect from a drama, if you subvert it there should be a reason

>That's not what happens. That's headcanon. He gets a *little* better, or appears to, and then reveals he's still extremely damaged and that this little experiment with him walking around in Cliff's replica has only made the problem worse.
what problem? the problem of being depressed? He was moping around and crying before, that didn't get worse, it didn't really happen again at all

can you stop this weird angry b***hing? he's clearly not depressed later on, what do you want me to say? he doesn't return to those easily identified depressive behaviours

>Why do you think a person needs to have a frowny face in order for you to know that they're unhappy? What kind of weird childlike moronation is that? I don't want my narrative dramas to be like that, if you want ones like that, go find them and stop watching mine.

so if a guy stops acting depressed, and starts acting like he has a new lease on life I can't assume he's not depressed anymore because uh... that's completely autistic and childish and nobody would ever think that

before the thread dies i just want you to know you have really really terrible taste. go eat shit pig
frick you

He allowed it to air with the embarassing plotholes, there's no difference.

you know full well that's what you said and you can't defend it because you're a fricking idiot. he can't be feeling guilty about something he hasn't done yet. that's the only thing you pointed to to show his guilty feelings you moronic little worm, go eat shit

hey moron, go ahead and explain how he's feeling guilty for cheating on the fricking guy's wife. oh wait all you've said so far is that he was already depressed in the first place. the fact is he wasn't guilty at all, because he ended up murdering her right after, because the fricking story sucks. suck my dick

>pure headcanon
Or maybe I just liked the episode, schizo.

>Thanks for admitting you have shit taste for liking BLMirror.
Oh and here I thought that was obvious since I've been defending the episode for three hours now. Dumbass.

I'm really, really glad you hate me. I consider it such a point of pride. It makes this whole ordeal worth it, it really does. I know I am doing something right because of how angry I make you. It brings me such joy, I can't even put it into words.

I don't know, the way he stammers and his lip quivers while he tries to defend himself? The way he doesn't hit Cliff back after Cliff hauls off and punches him in the face? Basically every look on his face from that point forward? He doesn't at any point say "I AM FEELING VERY BAD ABOUT WHAT I DID" so it just sailed right over your head, eh? Not my problem. I tried to make a point about how a morbidly depressed guy in that situation is different from someone who goes into it happy as a clam but you went into your idiotic BUT THAT HAPPENED EARLIER SO IT DO NOT COMPUTE ramblings and cannot be stopped.

>PEOPLE CAN'T FEEL THINGS THAT THEN FACTOR INTO HOW THEY REACT IN GIVEN SITUATIONS BECAUSE EVERY DAY IS A NEW BEGINNING FROM ABSOLUTE ZERO AND WE ALL LIVE LIKE THAT GUY FROM MEMENTO WITH NO RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAPPENED TO US THE DAY PRIOR
It's a perfectly valid point and you're a FRICKING M O R O N

you can feel guilty for your entire family dying while you sat by and did nothing and that guilt can overlap with lusting after a guy's wife you moronic idiot piece of shit, go outside and talk to a human being and then maybe you'll have some idea how feelings work

>Ah shit, I've been arguing something that's wrong and moronic. I know! I'll just argue the other side of the argument! I'm sure no one will notice!
This is unprecedented levels of cope. I mean I've seen some crazy shit on this board, but this is a doozy.

>You're so moronic
>Defending the Netflix show about homosexuals in space
I would cave your head in with a brick if I saw you in real life. You're defending media like it matters you fricking homosexual. I would repeatedly smash your teeth in with a brick in front of your parents while they watch in horror. Once the shock dies out they probably will thank me.
I want to kill you. I will kill you.