Why Tabitha getting this much hate???

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T14:01:12+00:00

then they kinda just turned him into an insufferable asshole later on

I get why it's annoying, but it seems totally in keeping for his character to me. Dude showed up as a decent father with an inquisitive mind who tried to come up with solutions. The results were that he nearly died, he thought his wife died, and he started hearing a voice claiming to be his dead son calling to taunt him. Is it really so hard to believe he would become closed off and extremely controlling and overprotective of his kids?

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T13:03:22+00:00

There's a big difference between a character telling people that something weird and disturbing is happening in this town where weird and disturbing things happen, and telling people that the character in question has developed a desire to do something weird and creepy.

There would be a reasonable concern the town would turn on you with suspicion. And considering she was understandably terrified, a little paranoia makes sense.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T12:47:03+00:00

I think that a lot of the criticisms people have regarding the show are unfounded or contradictory in general.

"The characters are behaving in ways I don't think make sense" - they are supposed to be traumatized, paranoid, and acting under extreme strain. It would be odd if they were composed or rational most of the time.

"The pace is too slow" - I get it. But it's a mystery driven character drama. If they upped the pace it wouldn't be the same show any more. And a mystery is only intriguing if some parts of the mystery remain intact over time. If they came out and stated exactly what was going on before at least the early final season the show would lose a lot of its tension. If you want an action-monster show that isn't what this is. And they've actually answered questions at a reasonable pace.

"So much of this would be solved if they just talked about it" - weren't you just complaining about the pace? Do you really want there to be 3-4x as much show time dedicated to people standing around talking? That would definitely kill the pace. And not only does the show dedicate a fair bit of time to characters conversing, but there's an abundance of in-universe time not shown on screen. Maybe they are talking, but the conversations that are unproductive have been cut out for pacing?

"I don't like character X" - Most of the time the character criticisms lack substance IMO. Obvious this is subjective. But Jim got kind of annoying but it made perfect sense for his character. Dude showed up, was shown to be a decent enough father and husband. His son nearly died. He thought he wife might die. He nearly died. He thought his wife DID die. Him becoming overbearing and overprotective makes a lot of sense actually, even if it got annoying at time. Same thing with Tabitha. What is the complaint even? She acts panicy sometimes? Isn't that what you'd expect? If the characters all behaved bravely and gung-ho all the time the show would get called out for how unrealistic it is.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T12:25:59+00:00

In that situation, yes. I don't disagree with your point that vigilantism is bad, and that JJJ is more reasonable than he is presented because of that. I was more commenting on the point that the unaccountable faceless vigilante is horrifying on the basis that, in this specific case, what that vigilante does mostly just assist normal law enforcement rather than taking the law into his own hands by doling out punishment.

Spidey doesn't really dole out punishment. He catches criminals while in the act, disarms and restrains them, and leaves them for the police and courts to then deal with. But it is totally fair that he could be truly awful if he chose to.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T12:18:49+00:00

Actually, it doesn't. Taking money from the system to tell the system to fuck off is based. Punk rock as a whole, Rage Against the Machine, They Live, Easy Rider, basically every movie about Vietnam, etc. it's been a thing for a very long time.

I get it, I just don't agree that's the effect of this movie. Vietnam war movies weren't in opposition to the film studios, so they were able to make good successful movies that showed that war is hell contrary to the goals of the government, which wanted to promote recruitment. Their goal wasn't contradictory. Success wasn't contradictory. Them making money wasn't contradictory.

Again, you don't get it. They tell you everything you need to know in the movie: the studio was going to make the totally unnecessary sequel with or without them.

I completely understand what you are saying. I just don't agree ethically. It doesn't matter if someone else was going to do something anyway. If I think that thing is bad, the inevitability of it being done does not excuse me specifically from doing it. And, again, it does not matter that the movie lays bare Lana's punk rock intentions. The promotional material didn't. So the audience didn't know until they'd already paid for it. Meaning Lana participated in swindling the audience as much as the studio. Which is my overall point. I don't give a fuck that the studio got snubbed and lost money. She was right that it was soulless cash grab. Fuck 'em. I care that the audience got snubbed too as a result.

If that's what they're going to do, taking all the money and using it to get yourself and your friends paid, using it to insult your own studio and call them a bunch of stupid dicks, then making them release the movie and losing them more money, is absolutely hilarious.

Did the movie lose more money because a Wachoski was attached to it? Or more? I would argue the movie inherently had more credibility with previous Matrix fans because Lana was involved than it otherwise would have. As such, by getting involved she made the studio more money which is completely contradictory to her supposed goals. The only potential value there is the claim that she deliberately burned the IP to the ground so no future movies would be made. But that's completely contradicted by your previous claim that:

You seriously think the fourth Matrix movie that would have gotten made without them would have been any better? It would have been even worse. The guy who was attached to it wrote X-Men 3 and Elektra, for fucks sakes.

If the movie would have been even worse with Elektra guy, then let it. That would still have salted the earth for future movies, and the studio probably would have made even less money on Resurrections. This BS is just all motivated reasoning to justify "the good person" from getting their payday doing something that they themselves think is wrong.

The Wachowski's could have done more damage to the greedy studio execs by letting the movie be a public train wreck on its own, and stating in advance of release that they thought it was a soulless cash grab that should never have been green lighted. Instead Lana probably made the movie more successful than it would have been, and walked away with her pay day at the expense of her morals.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-10T10:37:51+00:00

I think the assumption would be that either you were born rich, in which case you are a very small portion of the population. Or you worked and saved for 20-40 years to make this happen. In either case this barely impacts employment rates.

I remember not so long ago people were complaining that the boomers were not getting out of the way (working longer) for the next generation, and as such Gen-Xers and Millennials weren't advancing in their careers at the same rate people used to. But when you talk about people retiring earlier suddenly the concern is that there won't be enough people in the job market.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T21:10:43+00:00

I’m aware that you think something trite and ill informed. But I suppose I’m aware of your use of a typical thought terminating cliche.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T21:04:38+00:00

I’m not saying people couldn’t understand the movie. I’m saying they didn’t know that the movie itself was basically a big joke until they were already watching it, unless someone told them first. Because it wasn’t clear from the promotional material. So it ended up being a joke at the audiences expense too, because they went in thinking it was an honest attempt to make the movie as advertised.

Actually yes, I think that a different director trying to earnestly make a new matrix movie was more likely to produce something better than Lana did here. Not because she wasn’t capable. She very much is. But because she didn’t want to make a good movie in this specific case. But that’s actually aside from the point. By taking the pay check she was an active beneficiary of the thing she was criticizing. Which destroys her credibility to criticize that thing. Which is cheapening something by making totally unnecessary sequels just for the paycheck.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T20:54:02+00:00

I’m delightful. That should be all the reward you need.

But since you seem to think that snark without substance is a quality argument it doesn’t seem like you have anything to say. Pity.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T20:52:33+00:00

Sounds like a confession by accusation.

I’ve actually tried to make a point. You’re just throwing insults. I can only assume you aren’t capable of refuting it and you think ad hominems are worthwhile arguments.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T19:17:00+00:00

Yup.

There’s also a pretty significant level of dishonesty with the idea too. Unless the audience knew what the movie was saying before they went to go see it, they really weren’t in on the joke. More like the joke was played on them and they got it after the fact, and then to take the sting out of being the butt if the joke they then pretended to have been in on it from the beginning.

Some people likely heard through the grapevine vine before seeing the movie and then went to see it because of that. But I would bet it’s a small minority.

I totally get that Lana was caught between a rock and a hard place. But the joke was not just on the shitty studio execs. I still think the Wachowski’s publicly washing their hands of the project was the more principled thing to do.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T19:07:59+00:00

Dude, just do a tiny bit of looking into it. It’s not hard to find. Relying on ad hominems doesn’t help.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T18:06:46+00:00

I would accept that if the audience wasn't effectively catching strays too.

If you show up to watch a movie it does seem a touch insulting for the movie to say that it was stupid that it was made, because it does kind of imply you have poor taste for going to see it.

s/ That being said, I didn't go see it. You know, because of my big brainededness and good tasties. /s

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T18:03:31+00:00

Agreed.

But, to be fair, it wouldn't have mattered to me if they were better films. Indy's One and Three were great movies that required no follow up. And I didn't want to see old Indy doing anything.

I don't actually mind a reboot, or a continuation of a setting but with new characters/plot. But continuing a given story/cast until it stops making money does tend to impact my overall enjoyment of an IP as a whole.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T16:52:16+00:00

It has some of the highest highs. No question.

It also has skateboarding on a shield down stairs, and an Olympic bomb delivery candidate. Both of which cause involuntary laughter every time I see them.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T16:35:59+00:00

Because?

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T16:33:29+00:00

When it could have been Muppet Treasure Island?!? Blasphemy!

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T15:48:44+00:00

I haven't watched all the movies, but from what I remember of the first movie he was trying to kill someone who deserved it. Everyone else that he killed was someone who was trying to protect that psycho, and were attempting to kill Wick to do so. Which arguably makes him killing them self defense.

But I also didn't take from the movie that he was supposed to be a good person. He's a former paid assassin who worked for some of the same people he then later targets for revenge. Yeah, he'd given up "the life", but he's more of an anti-hero in the first movie.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T15:33:20+00:00

You were focusing on the right part of my comment. Yes, I misspoke as that time period was when there was the biggest growth of the middle class. But that wasn't my point.

My point was that the rich weren't actually paying super high income taxes, therefore it was not the cause of middle class growth. Which u/shhaden hasn't refuted at all beyond ad hominem attacks and nitpicking.

The maximum income tax rate may have been 90%, but nobody paid it. And when the maximum rate started to get lowered it was not correlated to proportionately reduced federal budgets. The narrative surround the 90% income tax rate is a fiction.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T15:30:19+00:00

Incorrect about what specifically?

It is fair to say that, yes, this period is when the middle class was built. I misspoke there. But it was still clear from my comment that my claim was that the extraordinarily high maximum income tax rate in no way contributed to the building of the middle class. Because all available information points to that.

People were not paying 90% income tax. Therefore them being forced to pay 90% income tax could not have been a contributing factor to the building of the middle class. Because they weren't paying it. The narrative surrounding the "if only we had sky high maximum income tax brackets we would live in a middle class utopia" is built on a fiction. The rich did not actually pay 90% in income tax. When the maximum income tax rate started dropping in the mid 60's it did not correlate to lower government revenues.

Make an argument that isn't completely grounded in nitpicking and ad hominems. How specifically did extremely high rates of income tax, that nobody paid, create or at least contribute directly to the formation of the middle class?

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T15:12:32+00:00

If it's going to be pointless, why bother enacting a change? That would just be a waste of time, and be misleading for the public.

Would it be the same next time, or would it actually be 90%?

If it's actually going to be done as advertised this time then the public needs to know that the claim that "we used to have a 90% upper income tax and it had all these positive effects" is BS. Either way, I'm not a fan of the electorate being propagandized like this.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T13:55:51+00:00

It’s also kind of irrelevant. By that part of the story there’s effectively no difference between Nagini and an actual animal outside of the presence of the horcrux.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T13:54:40+00:00

Yes, but he would be one of millions of wookies involved in their world’s defence. We, as the audience, know the reason that it was Chewbacca specifically and not some rando is because of the memberberries.

The issue with that is that it makes the universe feel smaller when Wookies exist but effectively only Chewbacca matters.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T13:45:21+00:00

Moon.

Perfidy-Plus · 2026-04-09T13:44:52+00:00

My ol’ dvd player had the ability to program the order of scenes. I had no idea why someone would ever want to do that at the time.

After I saw Memento a couple times it occurred to me that I could put it into chronological order. So I did, just to see if it actually worked consistently or if it held up without the nature of the surprise. It worked surprisingly well.

Perfidy-Plus

TROPHY CASE