Entertainment
Sponsored by

***LANDMAN (Taylor Sheridan series)***

128,721 Views | 734 Replies | Last: 14 min ago by O.G.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sounds good. I'm in !

I like the show. I was in oil and gas, and college, and, well, a lot to the point all of this show is total horse crap but it's an awesome entertaining hour for me the nonetheless. I'm trying to stop ruining my own entertainment and Hollywood by picking apart every inaccuracy. Turn off the brain, enjoy.
Thunderstruck xx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure what show some of the last few posters watched, but episode 9 was awesome. The ****ting on they/them pronouns was the icing on the cake. Looking forward to the finale!
bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ogre09 said:

Cooper will be in legal trouble for beating the **** out of the rapist. Which is bull**** because in Texas penal code he would have been justified to use deadly force to stop the rape. No DA in Texas would charge him with anything, especially put there. Hell, they'd give him a medal. But the show will make a big deal out of it for the sake of drama.


They made a point of cutting to the scene on CCTV to show the entire incident was captured on security cam.
Lathspell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I literally had to turn it off 1 minute into the roommate introduction. I had an "I'm out" moment. I don't know if they make fun of it or if they embrace it, but I just couldn't deal with that **** in my "entertainment", when I disconnect from the real world.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought it was a decent episode.

Told my wife and daughter that the "they/them" freak was nothing but a tyrant, dictating when the freaking lights could be on or the no music thing. Also, we could not determine whether that actor was an actual female. I eventually just started calling it "Pat".

I'm real curious how they are going to deal with Cooper beating the crap out of that fat **** who tried to rape his hot little fiance. I'm pretty sure in Texas he'd be thrown a parade and given the keys to the city for defending her like that, but I'm not a lawyer so may very well be incorrect. I figure that, given the political leanings of this show, he'll be exonerated based on the CCTV footage. One question - is the hatred the fat **** displayed toward Hispanics still really a thing in Texas these days?

Tommy being fired was a bit of a surprise. Not sure how they have a show without him in that role, so I expect something will happen that will have Demi Moore re-think that decision.
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lathspell said:

I literally had to turn it off 1 minute into the roommate introduction. I had an "I'm out" moment. I don't know if they make fun of it or if they embrace it, but I just couldn't deal with that **** in my "entertainment", when I disconnect from the real world.


There is a lot of Ainsley being confused but basically shat all over it and made the person out to look miserable and hating their life


I suspect where Cooper is gonna have trouble is this guy is some big shot or has close ties to the AG or the cops
aggiegrad01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ainsley should have asked "they/them" if that means multiple personalities. Maybe the "fun personality" could be the roommate that was around when Ainsley was in the room. On the other hand, maybe Ainsley does not feel safe b\c the roommate could have a violent personality. "They/them" just sounds exhausting.

Ainsley also deserves a "safe space" place to go to; it's just as much her room.

Maybe "they/them" will realize it's life is miserable and having no friends and being confrontational is a lonely life to live. (Similar to the lawyer being lonely.) Ainsley seems to befriend anyone and could likely help this person learn to be more accepting of others, as much as "they" want to be accepted.
Murder Hornet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The writers ripped they/them apart pretty good. Showed how completely intolerant all the wokesters are

I almost got on my phone and checked out but that whole episode highlighted the absurdity of that whole ideology
Murder Hornet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiegrad01 said:

Ainsley should have asked "they/them" if that means multiple personalities. Maybe the "fun personality" could be the roommate that was around when Ainsley was in the room. On the other hand, maybe Ainsley does not feel safe b\c the roommate could have a violent personality. "They/them" just sounds exhausting.

Ainsley also deserves a "safe space" place to go to; it's just as much her room.

Maybe "they/them" will realize it's life is miserable and having no friends and being confrontational is a lonely life to live. (Similar to the lawyer being lonely.) Ainsley seems to befriend anyone and could likely help this person learn to be more accepting of others, as much as "they" want to be accepted.


Not cooper
Mr.Bond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

No it was stupid. A sophomore sports management major wouldn't be a roommate with a cheerleader during some random week long orientation cheer camp. You cant have ferrets in the dorms (I know: my sophomore year we hid a cat for a semester before getting caught). Everyone answers questionnaires and finds out who their roommate is ahead of time.

And the admissions counselor would be punting this complaint off of her desk with dizzying speed.

Besides the fact that TCU dorms are ridiculously nice. And what they robbed us of was a very realistic storyline of Angela hiring an interior designer or something to do a mural on the wall (this is a literal thing that happens), BBT and Cooper making some quips comparing it to Tx Tech, then finding out shes not remotely the richest girl on campus and that no one is that impressed.

Also why isn't she rushing a sorority?

To be fair I think THEY/THEM said Sports Medicine so maybe THEY are there for training camp as a trainer? Who knows.
Im looking for Ray Finkle.... and a clean pair of shorts. Im just a very big Finkle fan. This is my Graceland, sir.
Thunderstruck xx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Murder Hornet said:

The writers ripped they/them apart pretty good. Showed how completely intolerant all the wokesters are

I almost got on my phone and checked out but that whole episode highlighted the absurdity of that whole ideology


I loved the part where Ainsley accurately states the absurdity of the pronouns thing because those people basically want to tell you how to think and speak EVEN WHEN THEY AREN'T IN THE ROOM.
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Haven't watched much of Sheridan other shows but compared to season 1 this season definitely feels like an airing of liberal grievances. The view one still gets me
aggiegrad01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If Tommy is fired from his job, Angela will be gone. She wraps herself in money and believes that spending it is the only way to be happy. She'll have to go and find another man to put up with her crazy BS and spend all his money. If she cannot have access to private jets and calling personal shoppers when she's sad, she's not going to stay with Tommy, again - this is likely why she originally left him, after he lost his money in the first bust. She's made it very clear that money is all she loves - next to her daughter. (Sure she loves Cooper, but not like her mini-me daughter.)
AustinScubaAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

Tommy being fired was a bit of a surprise. Not sure how they have a show without him in that role, so I expect something will happen that will have Demi Moore re-think that decision.

Honestly the Demi Moore character is way over her head. She and Cooper both are making poor decisions though at least Cooper has a theory on why what he did worked.

On a side note the Cooper approach is what would have been done 20 to 30 years ago when there was no way to get better data..
Ogre09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS


Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.




Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.




Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
mm98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So after ep8 ended, I was wondering what the last two episodes would be and talked myself into some version of this:

- The six wells Cooper hit home runs on were somehow rolled into a differnt LLC, not owned by Sonrisa. Call it an oversight by Garcia, or a technicality in the language not caught that Nate and Rebecca drafted up.

- The losses/debt on the offshore rig would continue and be unresolved, and Coop's six wells and whatever technology he is using to drill for more would continue to bank roll his LLC and keep MTEX afloat, possibly leading to a major company reorg.

- Garcia would realize this towards the close of e10, realizing he's holding the complete bag of **** in this whole deal, and sets up a major conflict in s3.

I think the major issue isn't solely the writing for S2, it is the lack of conflict. In S1 you had an airplane/tanker explosion and a pumpjack explosion all in the e1, which tied in all the storylines the rest of the season. Death, violence, operations impact, and some character development.

In S2 it went straight into continuing the storylines without any real source of conflict other than an insurance payout/legal obligation that has been dragging for a while now.
Ogre09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I like that we're not seeing as ridiculous of a series of misadventures in season 2. That many workplace deaths in such a short time span would have OSHA shutting down any company.
mm98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ogre09 said:

I like that we're not seeing as ridiculous of a series of misadventures in season 2. That many workplace deaths in such a short time span would have OSHA shutting down any company.

Well, an OHSA and HR compliant company would likely not make a good show.

I Am A Critic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Morons who still think this is a documentary.
Username checks out.
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ooooh what if the point of showing the cctv footage is that it conveniently goes missing
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I do want to highlight my favorite scene of the episode. It didn't drive the plot but was such a tender and human moment with TL and the stripper at the pool.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Saxsoon said:

Ooooh what if the point of showing the cctv footage is that it conveniently goes missing


This is a good theory and the only theory that will redeem adding in that seen. (Like Garcia will use it as blackmail to do get BBT to do something to protect his son) still kinda thin, but not as bad.

bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Saxsoon said:

I do want to highlight my favorite scene of the episode. It didn't drive the plot but was such a tender and human moment with TL and the stripper at the pool.


Yeah, seeing her ass in the bikini bottoms did bring a tear to my eye.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I keep thinking that they are going to end up in an actual relationship and I do not like it.
bonfarr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

I keep thinking that they are going to end up in an actual relationship and I do not like it.


They have to do something with T.L.'s character other than him being a broken down old man unless his sole purpose in the series is to show Tommy how his life will end up if he doesn't make changes but that's boring.
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bonfarr said:

Saxsoon said:

I do want to highlight my favorite scene of the episode. It didn't drive the plot but was such a tender and human moment with TL and the stripper at the pool.


Yeah, seeing her ass in the bikini bottoms did bring a tear to my eye.


That was just a plus
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
swimmerbabe11 said:

I keep thinking that they are going to end up in an actual relationship and I do not like it.

Why?
Muy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Enjoyed this episode and glad they didn't spend much time in the boring relationship between the Australian mull guy and the female attorney.

Tommy getting blindsided by Demi Moore was the best scene of the season. He truly did not see that coming, and it's clear that Andy Garcia's character has gotten in her head and she about to realize how far over her skis she is.

With that said:

- What happens at the house with his coworkers
- Do we even know if BBT has money saved up or was he (mainly Angela) blowing all of his hard earned money and now they have to move out while he has to get his life in order
- How does Cooper react to this knowing his employer just fired his dad?
- Will a competitor swoop in and snag BBT, Cooper, Nate and the attorney?

How loyal are BBT's colleagues and Angela now that he's jobless all of a sudden? What extremes will BBT go to take Demi Moore down? Surely their other investors are going to freak out with BBT gone.
Duckhook
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lathspell said:

I literally had to turn it off 1 minute into the roommate introduction. I had an "I'm out" moment. I don't know if they make fun of it or if they embrace it, but I just couldn't deal with that **** in my "entertainment", when I disconnect from the real world.

This has an easy solution. Just fast forward through any scene that has the wife or daughter in it like I do. Avoid all of their stupid nonsense. I watched maybe 20 minutes of this episode.
O.G.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Worst Episode Ever. By far. Embarrassing. Only the dialoge between Sam Elliott & Cheyenne was worth watching & Sam Elliott is being sqandered on this show.

As an actual Landman, I get asked about this show a lot. Like, a lot, a lot & this is one episode that I hope those asking don't see.

The beat down of the r@pist at the end was good to watch but predictable & just illustrates the point that girls need Jiu Jitsu. A girl in that postion with a man on top of her, wearing a jacket like that, that had 6 weeks of Jiu Jitsu would have choked him to sleep. Lights out, done.
Legend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Surprised no one mentioned the very subtle but hilarious scene where Ainsley pulls out her drivers license on the admissions building steps to see if it says she is an adult.

Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Legend said:

Surprised no one mentioned the very subtle but hilarious scene where Ainsley pulls out her drivers license on the admissions building steps to see if it says she is an adult.



that was pretty funny
O.G.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Saxsoon said:

Haven't watched much of Sheridan other shows but compared to season 1 this season definitely feels like an airing of liberal grievances. The view one still gets me

I don't think Sheridan is a die hard conservative, I think for this show he is playing to the audience & what most people in West TX think about "the view" and all of that.
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
O.G. said:

Saxsoon said:

Haven't watched much of Sheridan other shows but compared to season 1 this season definitely feels like an airing of liberal grievances. The view one still gets me

I don't think Sheridan is a die hard conservative, I think for this show he is playing to the audience & what most people in West TX think about "the view" and all of that.


He isn't a die hard conservative but BBT says those little quips are basically how Sheridan talks on set
O.G.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Saxsoon said:

O.G. said:

Saxsoon said:

Haven't watched much of Sheridan other shows but compared to season 1 this season definitely feels like an airing of liberal grievances. The view one still gets me

I don't think Sheridan is a die hard conservative, I think for this show he is playing to the audience & what most people in West TX think about "the view" and all of that.


He isn't a die hard conservative but BBT says those little quips are basically how Sheridan talks on set

I only talked to him once & we talked about music, not politics or any of that.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.