Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Six Feet Under Season 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Six Feet Under Season 5 - Page 4

post #91 of 339
Haven't they all been 2005 this year? I thought so...

I am bothered by a math discrepancy. Nate told Billy he met Fiona when he was 15, and she was 32. 17 year age difference. With me so far? Now, Nate just turned 40. Fiona was born in 1952 (title card, and placard outside her service), so she was 53 when she died... but shouldn't she have been 57, if she's 17 years older than Nate?
post #92 of 339
daxL what I mean is, at the begginng of the episode it showed the persons death as 2003, then a small beep sound occured and the 3 switched to a 5
post #93 of 339
Quote:
Fiona was born in 1952 (title card, and placard outside her service)
According to the obit at HBO's website, she was born in 1948. I'll have to rewatch the episode.

M.
post #94 of 339
They totally screwed up the timeline for Nate and Fiona's hook-up, or Fiona was lying about her age, though why would Fiona want to represent herself as being 4 years older at the time of Nate's deflowering (saying she was 32 when she was really 28), that's a mystery.

Too bad "Dead Like Me" was on Showtime, because I was so hoping Claire wound up working at Happy Time. Loved her "You ride up my thighs" performance.

I finally caught up to episode 6, haven't gotten to this week's episode yet. Brenda seems slightly off being in such a normal working environment nowadays. Billy's kind of pathetic (having his mother set up a last-ditch effort to get back with Claire). Ruth and George's arc got better. Nate is so playing with fire with Maggie. Keith and David's child-rearing skills will test their own relationship, the older foster kid was crushed by what Keith said in front of the social worker. Rico has been all over the map, how will Vanessa try to gain the upper hand as Rico moves back in?
post #95 of 339
>> showed the persons death as 2003, then a small beep sound occured and the 3 switched to a 5

Oh. I didn't notice. Weird. Wonder why. Did that quick scene where Nate gave us the exposition that Maggie knew them mention that the guy had a close call a couple years ago, maybe...

>> According to the obit at HBO's website, she was born in 1948. I'll have to rewatch the episode.

That would make things work out right. Episode twice showed 1952, but that doesn't work...
post #96 of 339
Quote:
(although one could argue that the ghost of Gabe Dimas was really speaking to Clair when he told her he was dead,


I always took this as Claire's way of getting closure. She figured he was so hopeless in his life that death was probably the only way he'd have some kind of peace. I always thought it was a smart move to keep this ambiguous to the viewer. To have Gabe show up in the future kind of spoils it. As far as she knows... he probably is dead.

Nate was 35 according to the pilot (my friend and I just started season 1 a week ago and are already up through the season 2 finale). It's funny them messing up Fiona's age, considering how eerily good they are with consistancy (All season they've been referencing past episodes on a pretty good basis, accurately)

For those who don't expect the series to wrap up, remember that with a show like this a lot can change in just one episode. Look at movies for a reference. You can have a set up and a great middle, and a satisfying conclusion in as short as 80 minutes sometimes.
post #97 of 339
Quote:
notice the date change at the opening death scene? went from 2003 to 2005
I Tivo the East Coast showing of SFU and that did not happen on that showing.

About the episode, how pathetic is Ruth? She wanted to leave George and once he moved on she can't deal with it so she sets out to riun the relationship.
post #98 of 339
Quote:
once he moved on she can't deal with it so she sets out to riun the relationship
I didn't see it that way at all. Ruth feels that she was swindled by George's whirlwind courtship. He swept her off her feet, and before she could stand up, she found herself lumbered with someone who not only wasn't much of a husband but needed constant care.

When she discovers that George is about to do the same thing to some other woman, she can't stand by and let history repeat itself. She's realized now that she should have learned a lot more about him before marrying. All those previous wives were a big red flag.

Do you think George's latest mark would be better off marrying him without knowing his history? George sure as hell wasn't going to tell her, just like he didn't tell Ruth.

M.
post #99 of 339
Quote:
I didn't see it that way at all. Ruth feels that she was swindled by George's whirlwind courtship. He swept her off her feet, and before she could stand up, she found herself lumbered with someone who not only wasn't much of a husband but needed constant care.

When she discovers that George is about to do the same thing to some other woman, she can't stand by and let history repeat itself. She's realized now that she should have learned a lot more about him before marrying. All those previous wives were a big red flag.

Do you think George's latest mark would be better off marrying him without knowing his history? George sure as hell wasn't going to tell her, just like he didn't tell Ruth.

Michael, I agree with your assessment...I will say, however, that I always felt Ruth was overreacting towards George's condition. While he did need to be watched over a lot of the time, I always felt Ruth overplayed that card either for sympathy or perhaps she just wanted the drama. I seem to remember a scene with Maggie where Ruth was complaining to her and Maggie was thinking it wasn't as bad as she made it out to be. And whenever George would have a blowup, Ruth was always quick to point out, "See what I have to deal with!"
post #100 of 339
Quote:
I will say, however, that I always felt Ruth was overreacting towards George's condition.
I certainly agree that her reacton was extreme and often unpleasant. Whether it was too much depends on one's point of view. If you trace Ruth's path since the beginning of the series, it makes perfect sense. When we met her, she was a woman who had subjugated her life to her family and found little happiness in the experience. That's why she looked for solace in the long-running affair with Hiram, over which she felt such guilt when Nate Sr. died. It was the only part of her life where she wasn't self-sacrificing.

Over the course of the series, Ruth has tried numerous paths to find something that's just for her (self-help programs, work outside the Fisher family, various affairs). In fact, I think the reason she and Clair fight so often is that, despite the age difference, they're at roughly the same stage of self-exploration, Ruth's having been put on hold when she first married.

The marriage to George was supposed to be the start of a different kind of life, but suddenly Ruth was thrust back into the role she had occupied for thirty-odd years: selfless caregiver who no one else takes care of. It must have felt like being clapped back in prison, just after being released. The fury of Ruth's reaction may not have been nice or admirable, but it's understandable.

Of course, it helps to have a great actress like Frances Conroy, who can play the character with such raw immediacy (not to mention an utter lack of vanity).

M.
post #101 of 339
How old was Ruth when she had Nate? Conroy doesn't look to be 58 (if Ruth were 18 when Nate was born).
post #102 of 339
Quote:
How old was Ruth when she had Nate? Conroy doesn't look to be 58 (if Ruth were 18 when Nate was born).


According to Ruth's biography on the SFU website, she got married at 19. I assume she got pregnant shortly thereafter, thereby making her either 59 or 60 right now.

Frances Conroy herself is 51, about 6 1/2 months younger than my mother.
post #103 of 339
Sorry I clearly see Ruth's actions in a different light. I don't think there is any "I'm going to save you" in her actions but rather more of a "George can't move on before me" motivation.

Considering how poorly she bombed at the social gathering before the meddling I think it's a clear case of a bitter old shrew that was out to hurt someone rather then save someone.
post #104 of 339
i totally agree with michael on the ruth/george thing.

ruth got screwed when she married george -- she did not have the whole story before she got into the marriage. remember the "fake scene" where she yells at him? i think she says something to that effect ... and don't those fake scenes usually tell us what they're really thinking?

i'm glad she rolled on george to his fiancee. it's a pattern of his to do this kind of stuff (didn't he do that to his former wife as well ... only she didn't have the guts to tell ruth)?
post #105 of 339
Quote:
Frances Conroy herself is 51, about 6 1/2 months younger than my mother.

and in reality she's only 12 years older than Peter Krause.
post #106 of 339
I believe Ruth got pregnant before she was married, which is why she got married so young. There've been several statements about Nate, Sr. getting married when he really didn't want to. Nate, Jr. also found out he was an unplanned pregnancy. I wouldn't bet the mortgage payment that Ruth got pregnant before marriage, but that's been my general recollection.

Michael Reuben.. good stuf explaining who Ruth is.
post #107 of 339
Quote:
and in reality she's only 12 years older than Peter Krause.

That reminds of Sally Field and Tom Hanks, in that she played his girlfriend in Punchline in 1987 and then 7 years later, played his mother in Forrest Gump.

Rico talking to Ruth about sex was both disturbing and hilarious at the same time! Yes, I know it was fake, but still.....
post #108 of 339
Quote:
That reminds of Sally Field and Tom Hanks, in that she played his girlfriend in Punchline in 1987 and then 7 years later, played his mother in Forrest Gump.
A favorite example, but not the best, because Sally Field played her own age (more or less) when Forrest was a child, and then was aged with makeup to cover the film's multi-decade time span.

Now, the truly egregious example is Jessie Royce Landis in North by Northwest. She played Cary Grant's mother even though she was actually younger than Grant (by about ten months).

(Picky plot point: Sally Fields' character in Punchline isn't Hanks' girlfriend. She remains loyal to her husband throughout. There's no more than a hint of romance, from which both characters turn away.)

M.
post #109 of 339
Zarhary I agree. I loved the scene with Rico talking to Ruth. I physically laughed out loud during that scene which is something that usually doesn't happen to me when watching this show.
post #110 of 339
According to earlier episodes she said something along the lines of "You didn't do sexual things until marriage," which obviously had something to do with the young marriage. There's also the previously mentioned connection to Nate/Lisa and Nate Sr./Ruth in regards to "The Trap" of their marriages.
post #111 of 339
>> didn't he do that to his former wife as well

I believe Ruth is George's... eighth wife? Fourth? One of a bunch, at any rate.

I'm with Michael- Ruth did the right thing, warning George's next victim. Her actions weren't out of spite or jealousy... FRUSTRATION, yes, obviously, but...
post #112 of 339
wow. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
so, heart attack? stroke? "numbness in the arm" immeidately brings a heart attack to mind but his eyes going up and his history of brain problems says stroke. either way, it was heartbreaking, seeing Brenda there at that church, alone.


amazing episode, I thought.
post #113 of 339
I was so sure it was going to be Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Claire to die this season.


post #114 of 339
What a shocker...
post #115 of 339
While it does seem it would be hard to back out of this one, given the way he fell and the way he looked after the fall, I wouldn't say it's in the bag yet. And what was up with no previews for next week?
post #116 of 339
Looks like they don't want to give anything away.
post #117 of 339
And that spooky music just adds to the mystery. So is Nate done or what!
post #118 of 339
HBO is being smart about the preview description for next week as well - it doesn't reveal much:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
David and Keith become comfortable with family life; Ruth finds empowerment; Brenda faces several truths; Nate brings the family together.
post #119 of 339
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
If Nate dies, I expect them to draw it out over the last 4 episodes. Also, someone at the HBo forums had this to say:
Quote:
heart attack would have been the left arm. I work with Brain Injury and have noticed that they (the writers) are usually pretty accurate with their stuff. Right arm, probably a stroke, definitely in the left hemisphere (language center) where the surgery was. Could have been a clot related to his surgery but a reformation of his AVM would be unlikely.
post #120 of 339
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I hope we don't find out that the last 2 seasons have been Nate's dream while he was unconcious.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: TV Programming
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › TV Programming › Six Feet Under Season 5