Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We were impressed that they ended it how they always intended (all the footage of Ted's kids was shot during season one)
Disappointed they didn't spend more time building up to how things would shake out. It seemed like they had to make a lot of drastic changes in the last episode to fit the original concept.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Ted is a loser, and basically found another loser to 'settle' for each other to pop out offspring so he could get back to living his life with his original love. The mom was a worthless footnote and it is pretty terrible telling your kids about all the people you banged before your mom and your obvious 'first choice' for true love over and over and then say 'but then I settled for your mom, who promptly died and we had a tolerable existence and you were made."
And the Barney part was BS.
All around terrible ending to a series which jumped the shark long long ago and would have been better without the main character in it. The story he should have been telling was from 'where he met her' to 'where she died', not how awesome his life was before her and how much in love he was with aunt robin.
Edit: the worst thing is this proves that for the past few seasons, ted has been emotionally unavailable, and has had an unhealthy obsession which has sucked a solid 25 years of his life... It also shows he was never legitimately cool with the Robin/barney situation and since he has been a widower for 6 years, and robin never came knockin, really shows it is more him pining over her. To a point it is unhealthy and that the only reason he didn't just stick with robin in the first place was his need to procreate in order to have children. A 'wife' really never mattered to him.
I would not consider Ted Mosby a happy person, or up until that point having had a happy life, and until he actually went to see Robin, he was someone who lived a life of regret and was saddling his kids with his baggage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/02 00:26:34
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
HIMYM comment (spoilers to follow), did anyone else think back to the episode where Marshal explains that he has to imagine his wife dead in order to fantasize about other women?
DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++ Get your own Dakka Code!
"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude
HIMYM comment (spoilers to follow), did anyone else think back to the episode where Marshal explains that he has to imagine his wife dead in order to fantasize about other women?
Not particulary. why?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: Yeah, I still need to see the full final season. I wonder if I should go hide in a cave til it hits netflix.
The season leading up, while good, felt like they wante to tell more stories in real time, but couldnt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/02 04:38:58
timetowaste85 wrote: Yeah, I still need to see the full final season. I wonder if I should go hide in a cave til it hits netflix.
I'm in the same boat as you, except caught a glimpse of a spoiler on the internet, and now the whole thing is "ruined" for me so to speak. What do I tell my wife, she hasn't been spoilered yet.... How can I face her, knowing I've broken the sacred trust of married TV watching....
This is a serious problem for my relationship.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
I just finished watching it this weekend (streaming on questionable sites until episode 19, which is available on CBS up until the end), and I suspected the ending, asked my boss and had it confirmed, then shut him up as to the details. I basically got what I expected/wanted out of the show, but still feel...off. Good, yet sad. There is a black hole now. I need a hug. Expecting the ending, then see it happen...kinda wanted to cry with sadness and joy. Blah. I don't cry at movies, why would I cry at this? I need a tissue...
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
So..they are Mass Effecting it, remaking the ending an putting in on the season 9 box set.
I know the ending made people upset, but damnit stick with it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So..they are Mass Effecting it, remaking the ending an putting in on the season 9 box set.
I know the ending made people upset, but damnit stick with it.
I was fine with the ending. Way I saw it, if you wanted
Spoiler:
Ted to end up with Robin after all
you'd likely be happy with the ending.
If you wanted
Spoiler:
Ted to meet the mother of his kids, see a lot of them together, and have them live happily ever after until they were old and grey
you'd be upset with the ending.
I wanted the first thing from the beginning, and I got what I wanted-I'm quite content with the finale. I'd be more upset by having it changed. I would have been okay with the thing in my second spoiler, but the first was largely what I hoped for. I'm glad it turned out the way it did. Minus the one loss, anyway.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
The show had gone stale years ago. Didn't really care how it ended anymore, but felt compelled to watch it anyway.
So yeah, no strong feelings one way or the other, just glad it's over.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/08 08:31:16
hotsauceman1 wrote: See, I dont think that an artist should be forced to change his art to make people happy
I disagree, I think it depends on the type of art. If you're making a specific contained work with a clear theme that is a one-off or something on the scale of a miniseries(ie shows separately but really intended to be seen as a whole), sure, it's all about your "vision" as an artist. However, if we're talking about something like a TV show that goes on for years, or a game series that lasts for years, it isn't just about you any more, you've been interacting with a group of fans through the work over an extended period, and how the work has evolved and your comments on it to those fans builds expectations that I think you have as much duty to as an artist as you do to your own personal view of things.
Someone mentioned Mass Effect, and it's a perfect example of what I mean; the games had a specific tone and style which created expectations, the developers made public comments and promises which created expectations, for years those expectations were reinforced, but at the end some combination of time constraints or change in writing staff(the main guy from ME1, who jointly wrote ME2, wasn't involved in ME3) led to them putting out an ending that was out of place thematically, directly contradicted several outright promises made by the devs in the gaming press, and then responded to justifiable criticism with this arty-farty "artists shouldn't compromise their genius" excuse. Sure, there was also a lot of unjustifiable vitriol spewed about the place but, you know, it's the internet, you can say that about every discussion of every subject ever to exist online.
My point is, the creative will of the artist is certainly important, but you can't do the equivalent of tacking the ending of one of the Hostel films onto the Star Wars trilogy and expect people to be OK with that because your "muse" thought it would be a good idea.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
It was always a weird thing. The concept for the show was lost somewhere in the first series, as the writers drifted away from the premise and instead just started telling stories about single people living the single life. The framing device now just made it appear as though a Dad was telling his kids about all the women he hit on and slept with before he met their mother.
I mean, I didn't really have a problem with the show growing to become something else - the original premise was limiting and not very interesting, and when you develop a character like Barney you damn well run with it. But the question of how the show ends... well basically we're talking about a hole the writers put themselves in nine years ago that they've been avoiding ever since - the only way that can end is poorly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: See, I dont think that an artist should be forced to change his art to make people happy
Meh, there's plenty of compromises and constraints that ended up producing better art than what had existed in the original vision. And there's plenty of cases of artists given free reign to produce whatever they wanted, only to end up producing some seriously awful crap. Of course, there's also countless cases of art being ruined by endless committees.
Ultimately, I think it's way too simplistic to talk about the artistic process as simply needing to be one artist not compromising his vision. Especially not when the art in question has involved the contributions of hundreds of people over almost a decade, and evolved greatly from where it first began.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/08 09:04:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
hotsauceman1 wrote: See, I dont think that an artist should be forced to change his art to make people happy
I disagree, I think it depends on the type of art. If you're making a specific contained work with a clear theme that is a one-off or something on the scale of a miniseries(ie shows separately but really intended to be seen as a whole), sure, it's all about your "vision" as an artist. However, if we're talking about something like a TV show that goes on for years, or a game series that lasts for years, it isn't just about you any more, you've been interacting with a group of fans through the work over an extended period, and how the work has evolved and your comments on it to those fans builds expectations that I think you have as much duty to as an artist as you do to your own personal view of things.
Someone mentioned Mass Effect, and it's a perfect example of what I mean; the games had a specific tone and style which created expectations, the developers made public comments and promises which created expectations, for years those expectations were reinforced, but at the end some combination of time constraints or change in writing staff(the main guy from ME1, who jointly wrote ME2, wasn't involved in ME3) led to them putting out an ending that was out of place thematically, directly contradicted several outright promises made by the devs in the gaming press, and then responded to justifiable criticism with this arty-farty "artists shouldn't compromise their genius" excuse. Sure, there was also a lot of unjustifiable vitriol spewed about the place but, you know, it's the internet, you can say that about every discussion of every subject ever to exist online.
My point is, the creative will of the artist is certainly important, but you can't do the equivalent of tacking the ending of one of the Hostel films onto the Star Wars trilogy and expect people to be OK with that because your "muse" thought it would be a good idea.
The thing is, tthis was planned from the beginning, with the kis responses filmed in the first season
hotsauceman1 wrote: See, I dont think that an artist should be forced to change his art to make people happy
I disagree, I think it depends on the type of art. If you're making a specific contained work with a clear theme that is a one-off or something on the scale of a miniseries(ie shows separately but really intended to be seen as a whole), sure, it's all about your "vision" as an artist. However, if we're talking about something like a TV show that goes on for years, or a game series that lasts for years, it isn't just about you any more, you've been interacting with a group of fans through the work over an extended period, and how the work has evolved and your comments on it to those fans builds expectations that I think you have as much duty to as an artist as you do to your own personal view of things.
Someone mentioned Mass Effect, and it's a perfect example of what I mean; the games had a specific tone and style which created expectations, the developers made public comments and promises which created expectations, for years those expectations were reinforced, but at the end some combination of time constraints or change in writing staff(the main guy from ME1, who jointly wrote ME2, wasn't involved in ME3) led to them putting out an ending that was out of place thematically, directly contradicted several outright promises made by the devs in the gaming press, and then responded to justifiable criticism with this arty-farty "artists shouldn't compromise their genius" excuse. Sure, there was also a lot of unjustifiable vitriol spewed about the place but, you know, it's the internet, you can say that about every discussion of every subject ever to exist online.
My point is, the creative will of the artist is certainly important, but you can't do the equivalent of tacking the ending of one of the Hostel films onto the Star Wars trilogy and expect people to be OK with that because your "muse" thought it would be a good idea.
The thing is, tthis was planned from the beginning, with the kis responses filmed in the first season
Irrelevant to my point. Regardless of the plans they had in the beginning, this show has been running for years, and in that time has obviously deviated from their original "vision" to some degree as evidenced by the response to the ending. When something's been running for so long, it's not just about the creators any more; the characters evolve based on a mixture of input from the creators, the actors portraying them, and the fans watching the show and giving feedback. I think the creators have a responsibility to recognise that and if necessary adjust their original plans for the ending to accommodate the new context.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
Black Templars 4000 
Deathwatch 6000
