|
Vogel is not a bad person, she's just creepy.... would be too obvious.
I wouldn't be surprised if the main baddy is the owner of Deb's agency.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
Hm, I seem to be one of the few ones who doesn't find Vogel creepy. Yes her morals are questionable for sure, but her mannerisms and general behaviour seems almost maternal, I guess in an equivalent way to Harry
|
On July 11 2013 09:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Hm, I seem to be one of the few ones who doesn't find Vogel creepy. Yes her morals are questionable for sure, but her mannerisms and general behaviour seems almost maternal, I guess in an equivalent way to Harry What did you consider her rubbing and [presumably] smelling of dexter then? Good naturedly fun? It was creepy as all hell.
|
On July 11 2013 01:33 SpikeStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 00:35 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 23:47 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On July 10 2013 21:22 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 21:13 CatNzHat wrote:On July 09 2013 05:46 Reason wrote:On July 09 2013 05:45 iamperfection wrote:On July 09 2013 05:40 Reason wrote:
God damn it can we not talk about previews? if there is one thing we have learned from dexter previews is that they regularly try to throw us off on purpose. I wouldn't know and I'd like to keep it that way  Watching previews of ANYTHING is the DUMBEST THING you can do imo.... If you know you're going to watch it, why spoil even the tiniest scene? I understand watching a movie preview if it's not like the next Star Wars or a famous director because you might not be sure if you want to see the film, but when you're watching something like Dexter or GoT or whatever, why the fuck would you want to see anything about what happens next week? There's literally NO chance that I'm not going to watch the next episode... watching a preview of something I know for certain I'm going to watch is something I absolutely never do, when I'm in the cinema and they should me previews of the FILM I'M ABOUT TO WATCH I want to burn the theater to the ground! + Show Spoiler +What I actually do is put my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and look stupid for a few moments  studies have shown that watching/reading a story once it's been 'spoiled' leads to higher enjoyment. google if you don't believe me, or just try it. Knowing the ending isn't so bad, it's fun to try to predict things from previews as well. Link me those studies and prove it to me, I never recall enjoying a story once I knew the ending except for the Odissey, Dante's Commedia (who is constantly spoiled by the author himself) and old classics everybody talks about so you don't have any chance to avoid being spoilered. I cannot even understand how it would be funny. Edit: for the sake of the discussion, I gotta add that Columbo (tv series) is an exception since I loved it. But in that series the "spoiler" is the fundamental element since the series is more about setting up traps than discovering a culprit. Short report: Story Spoilers Don't Spoil StoriesTheres a full version too if you follow the link to the online version but you have to pay 35 bucks for it. Its more an observation but relatively open to interpretation why exactly spoilers dont spoil stories. What i would think is that your anticipation is way higher and you pay more attention to details like how its executed. You appreciate that scene more indepth because at the first time you arent able to process everything at once. Its like many people watch the episodes multiple times and still enjoy it because there are different layers of enjoyment. The first the suprise and suspense, then the plot development and finally details and execution. So the second time watching would be more enjoyable because you dont actually have to understand the plot and whats happening and can enjoy it more. So if you plan to watch it only once you can maximize your enjoyment by being spoilt, but if you plan to watch it multiple times anyhow you lose the enjoyment of the first suprise. I think there is some truth to it, but i guess it can still be very subjective.. Imho this is too subjective to even call it a theory: what's the difference between a series you've been spoiled with (that you watch really carefully to pay attention to details) and a series that surprises you and make you want to rewatch it again to better enjoy what just happened? Personally the only difference I see it's that the first case doesn't allow you to be surprised. I mean, it's like handicapping your experience... can't really see why. Personally I believe that spoilers are for lazy people or for those who don't really want themselves to dedicate to a story unless they are sure it's interesting. But then again, if they already know it's interesting thanks to the spoilers and watch it... they don't watch it at fullest. A couple of examples with other series (without spoilering anyone), and one with Dexter's season 6. 1) GAME OF THRONES: watched the first series, was shocked by some events and went "holy shit". If I would have been spoilered, there wouldn't have been any surprise value. Immediately I bought and read all the books, so the moment season 2 was up I knew everything. During season 3 something big happens, but since I already knew what was going to happen there was no point in being shocked (unlike it happened when reading the books). 2) HANNIBAL: ended watching season 1. During the last episodes I started noticing how things were planned since the very start, how some camera shoots are hidden citations and so on... it made me want to rewatch it all. And now it makes more sense, since I got both the analisys and the shock effect. 3) DEXTER SEASON 6: so, there's this bad guy + Show Spoiler +who happens to have double personality. Somewhere I read about this around episode 5-6, and the series was ruined. While like you I can get some sort of "truth" from that article, I find the general idea too cheap to call that a theory. Unless it works with some people, of course... but then more than a theory is a sort of tendency for some sick individuals its not a theory its a study with the observation that in 11 of 12 selected cases people enjoyed the story more when they were spoilt than unspoilt. Why is that the case? they dont really know either. The reasoning why is more speculative and what i wrote was more my personal non-scientific interpretation. You could maybe criticize the selection of spoilers not being representative and maybe not covering all kinds of spoilers / differentiating between good and bad spoilers. apparently in 1 case out of 12 the spoiler decreased enjoyment of the story. I didnt go that deep with the study and checked what their spoilers were but i think they had a selection of different kinds so it might even out so that it is representative. All your personal observations dont have any scientific value because you cannot tell in retrospective if you would have actually enjoyed it more if you werent spoilt. For example 3) Was your experience ruined because it was spoilt or because it was a bad plot twist in the first place? (because of inconsistencies in the plot for example) you will never know^^ A less populistic title would be spoilers dont spoil stories in 11 of 12 representative(?) cases, but who gets attention with such cowardice? :D
You say that personal observations have no scientific value yet a 'study' with a sample size of 12 carries so much weight? Personally I know from the many times I've been spoiled/haven't been that I enjoy things far more when the suspense is left intact. Wanting to know what happens next is key to narrative and when you lose that it lessens enjoyment. My wife was spoilered on 'The Rains of Castamere' and it ruined it for her. I was shell-shocked while she sat there like it was any other episode. The most simple example is sports. When someone tells you the score beforehand it absolutely lessens the enjoyment of watching the game.
That said, how can you even test if the same person enjoys a story more with/without spoilers, if they can only watch it for the first time once? Then again who gets attention when they use a proper sample size and come up with an expected result?
|
Haven't been reading the past few pages, but does anyone else think Vogel is orchestrating these murders?
|
On July 11 2013 09:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Hm, I seem to be one of the few ones who doesn't find Vogel creepy. Yes her morals are questionable for sure, but her mannerisms and general behaviour seems almost maternal, I guess in an equivalent way to Harry
You are a creepy person if you dont notice her creepy imo.
|
On July 11 2013 08:54 Mykill wrote:
Vogel is not a bad person, she's just creepy.... would be too obvious.
I wouldn't be surprised if the main baddy is the owner of Deb's agency.
The things she admitted to Dexter so far make her already a bad person. At least on Dexter's level of bad.
|
Dexter is going to go full Oedipus this season.
And Vogel is so going to betray him.
|
On July 11 2013 10:08 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 08:54 Mykill wrote:
Vogel is not a bad person, she's just creepy.... would be too obvious.
I wouldn't be surprised if the main baddy is the owner of Deb's agency. The things she admitted to Dexter so far make her already a bad person. At least on Dexter's level of bad.
Hardly... what makes you say that? What has she admitted?
|
On July 11 2013 09:46 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 01:33 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On July 11 2013 00:35 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 23:47 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On July 10 2013 21:22 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 21:13 CatNzHat wrote:On July 09 2013 05:46 Reason wrote:On July 09 2013 05:45 iamperfection wrote:On July 09 2013 05:40 Reason wrote:
God damn it can we not talk about previews? if there is one thing we have learned from dexter previews is that they regularly try to throw us off on purpose. I wouldn't know and I'd like to keep it that way Watching previews of ANYTHING is the DUMBEST THING you can do imo.... If you know you're going to watch it, why spoil even the tiniest scene? I understand watching a movie preview if it's not like the next Star Wars or a famous director because you might not be sure if you want to see the film, but when you're watching something like Dexter or GoT or whatever, why the fuck would you want to see anything about what happens next week? There's literally NO chance that I'm not going to watch the next episode... watching a preview of something I know for certain I'm going to watch is something I absolutely never do, when I'm in the cinema and they should me previews of the FILM I'M ABOUT TO WATCH I want to burn the theater to the ground! + Show Spoiler +What I actually do is put my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and look stupid for a few moments studies have shown that watching/reading a story once it's been 'spoiled' leads to higher enjoyment. google if you don't believe me, or just try it. Knowing the ending isn't so bad, it's fun to try to predict things from previews as well. Link me those studies and prove it to me, I never recall enjoying a story once I knew the ending except for the Odissey, Dante's Commedia (who is constantly spoiled by the author himself) and old classics everybody talks about so you don't have any chance to avoid being spoilered. I cannot even understand how it would be funny. Edit: for the sake of the discussion, I gotta add that Columbo (tv series) is an exception since I loved it. But in that series the "spoiler" is the fundamental element since the series is more about setting up traps than discovering a culprit. Short report: Story Spoilers Don't Spoil StoriesTheres a full version too if you follow the link to the online version but you have to pay 35 bucks for it. Its more an observation but relatively open to interpretation why exactly spoilers dont spoil stories. What i would think is that your anticipation is way higher and you pay more attention to details like how its executed. You appreciate that scene more indepth because at the first time you arent able to process everything at once. Its like many people watch the episodes multiple times and still enjoy it because there are different layers of enjoyment. The first the suprise and suspense, then the plot development and finally details and execution. So the second time watching would be more enjoyable because you dont actually have to understand the plot and whats happening and can enjoy it more. So if you plan to watch it only once you can maximize your enjoyment by being spoilt, but if you plan to watch it multiple times anyhow you lose the enjoyment of the first suprise. I think there is some truth to it, but i guess it can still be very subjective.. Imho this is too subjective to even call it a theory: what's the difference between a series you've been spoiled with (that you watch really carefully to pay attention to details) and a series that surprises you and make you want to rewatch it again to better enjoy what just happened? Personally the only difference I see it's that the first case doesn't allow you to be surprised. I mean, it's like handicapping your experience... can't really see why. Personally I believe that spoilers are for lazy people or for those who don't really want themselves to dedicate to a story unless they are sure it's interesting. But then again, if they already know it's interesting thanks to the spoilers and watch it... they don't watch it at fullest. A couple of examples with other series (without spoilering anyone), and one with Dexter's season 6. 1) GAME OF THRONES: watched the first series, was shocked by some events and went "holy shit". If I would have been spoilered, there wouldn't have been any surprise value. Immediately I bought and read all the books, so the moment season 2 was up I knew everything. During season 3 something big happens, but since I already knew what was going to happen there was no point in being shocked (unlike it happened when reading the books). 2) HANNIBAL: ended watching season 1. During the last episodes I started noticing how things were planned since the very start, how some camera shoots are hidden citations and so on... it made me want to rewatch it all. And now it makes more sense, since I got both the analisys and the shock effect. 3) DEXTER SEASON 6: so, there's this bad guy + Show Spoiler +who happens to have double personality. Somewhere I read about this around episode 5-6, and the series was ruined. While like you I can get some sort of "truth" from that article, I find the general idea too cheap to call that a theory. Unless it works with some people, of course... but then more than a theory is a sort of tendency for some sick individuals its not a theory its a study with the observation that in 11 of 12 selected cases people enjoyed the story more when they were spoilt than unspoilt. Why is that the case? they dont really know either. The reasoning why is more speculative and what i wrote was more my personal non-scientific interpretation. You could maybe criticize the selection of spoilers not being representative and maybe not covering all kinds of spoilers / differentiating between good and bad spoilers. apparently in 1 case out of 12 the spoiler decreased enjoyment of the story. I didnt go that deep with the study and checked what their spoilers were but i think they had a selection of different kinds so it might even out so that it is representative. All your personal observations dont have any scientific value because you cannot tell in retrospective if you would have actually enjoyed it more if you werent spoilt. For example 3) Was your experience ruined because it was spoilt or because it was a bad plot twist in the first place? (because of inconsistencies in the plot for example) you will never know^^ A less populistic title would be spoilers dont spoil stories in 11 of 12 representative(?) cases, but who gets attention with such cowardice? :D You say that personal observations have no scientific value yet a 'study' with a sample size of 12 carries so much weight? Personally I know from the many times I've been spoiled/haven't been that I enjoy things far more when the suspense is left intact. Wanting to know what happens next is key to narrative and when you lose that it lessens enjoyment. My wife was spoilered on 'The Rains of Castamere' and it ruined it for her. I was shell-shocked while she sat there like it was any other episode. The most simple example is sports. When someone tells you the score beforehand it absolutely lessens the enjoyment of watching the game. That said, how can you even test if the same person enjoys a story more with/without spoilers, if they can only watch it for the first time once? Then again who gets attention when they use a proper sample size and come up with an expected result?
You guys do realize that the "12" refers to the different stories they tested (three experiments, four stories each) and not the sample size (as in: number of participants in the study), which was well over 800?
|
On July 11 2013 23:44 Poffel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 09:46 Scarecrow wrote:On July 11 2013 01:33 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On July 11 2013 00:35 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 23:47 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On July 10 2013 21:22 MavivaM wrote:On July 10 2013 21:13 CatNzHat wrote:On July 09 2013 05:46 Reason wrote:On July 09 2013 05:45 iamperfection wrote:On July 09 2013 05:40 Reason wrote:
God damn it can we not talk about previews? if there is one thing we have learned from dexter previews is that they regularly try to throw us off on purpose. I wouldn't know and I'd like to keep it that way Watching previews of ANYTHING is the DUMBEST THING you can do imo.... If you know you're going to watch it, why spoil even the tiniest scene? I understand watching a movie preview if it's not like the next Star Wars or a famous director because you might not be sure if you want to see the film, but when you're watching something like Dexter or GoT or whatever, why the fuck would you want to see anything about what happens next week? There's literally NO chance that I'm not going to watch the next episode... watching a preview of something I know for certain I'm going to watch is something I absolutely never do, when I'm in the cinema and they should me previews of the FILM I'M ABOUT TO WATCH I want to burn the theater to the ground! + Show Spoiler +What I actually do is put my fingers in my ears and close my eyes and look stupid for a few moments studies have shown that watching/reading a story once it's been 'spoiled' leads to higher enjoyment. google if you don't believe me, or just try it. Knowing the ending isn't so bad, it's fun to try to predict things from previews as well. Link me those studies and prove it to me, I never recall enjoying a story once I knew the ending except for the Odissey, Dante's Commedia (who is constantly spoiled by the author himself) and old classics everybody talks about so you don't have any chance to avoid being spoilered. I cannot even understand how it would be funny. Edit: for the sake of the discussion, I gotta add that Columbo (tv series) is an exception since I loved it. But in that series the "spoiler" is the fundamental element since the series is more about setting up traps than discovering a culprit. Short report: Story Spoilers Don't Spoil StoriesTheres a full version too if you follow the link to the online version but you have to pay 35 bucks for it. Its more an observation but relatively open to interpretation why exactly spoilers dont spoil stories. What i would think is that your anticipation is way higher and you pay more attention to details like how its executed. You appreciate that scene more indepth because at the first time you arent able to process everything at once. Its like many people watch the episodes multiple times and still enjoy it because there are different layers of enjoyment. The first the suprise and suspense, then the plot development and finally details and execution. So the second time watching would be more enjoyable because you dont actually have to understand the plot and whats happening and can enjoy it more. So if you plan to watch it only once you can maximize your enjoyment by being spoilt, but if you plan to watch it multiple times anyhow you lose the enjoyment of the first suprise. I think there is some truth to it, but i guess it can still be very subjective.. Imho this is too subjective to even call it a theory: what's the difference between a series you've been spoiled with (that you watch really carefully to pay attention to details) and a series that surprises you and make you want to rewatch it again to better enjoy what just happened? Personally the only difference I see it's that the first case doesn't allow you to be surprised. I mean, it's like handicapping your experience... can't really see why. Personally I believe that spoilers are for lazy people or for those who don't really want themselves to dedicate to a story unless they are sure it's interesting. But then again, if they already know it's interesting thanks to the spoilers and watch it... they don't watch it at fullest. A couple of examples with other series (without spoilering anyone), and one with Dexter's season 6. 1) GAME OF THRONES: watched the first series, was shocked by some events and went "holy shit". If I would have been spoilered, there wouldn't have been any surprise value. Immediately I bought and read all the books, so the moment season 2 was up I knew everything. During season 3 something big happens, but since I already knew what was going to happen there was no point in being shocked (unlike it happened when reading the books). 2) HANNIBAL: ended watching season 1. During the last episodes I started noticing how things were planned since the very start, how some camera shoots are hidden citations and so on... it made me want to rewatch it all. And now it makes more sense, since I got both the analisys and the shock effect. 3) DEXTER SEASON 6: so, there's this bad guy + Show Spoiler +who happens to have double personality. Somewhere I read about this around episode 5-6, and the series was ruined. While like you I can get some sort of "truth" from that article, I find the general idea too cheap to call that a theory. Unless it works with some people, of course... but then more than a theory is a sort of tendency for some sick individuals its not a theory its a study with the observation that in 11 of 12 selected cases people enjoyed the story more when they were spoilt than unspoilt. Why is that the case? they dont really know either. The reasoning why is more speculative and what i wrote was more my personal non-scientific interpretation. You could maybe criticize the selection of spoilers not being representative and maybe not covering all kinds of spoilers / differentiating between good and bad spoilers. apparently in 1 case out of 12 the spoiler decreased enjoyment of the story. I didnt go that deep with the study and checked what their spoilers were but i think they had a selection of different kinds so it might even out so that it is representative. All your personal observations dont have any scientific value because you cannot tell in retrospective if you would have actually enjoyed it more if you werent spoilt. For example 3) Was your experience ruined because it was spoilt or because it was a bad plot twist in the first place? (because of inconsistencies in the plot for example) you will never know^^ A less populistic title would be spoilers dont spoil stories in 11 of 12 representative(?) cases, but who gets attention with such cowardice? :D You say that personal observations have no scientific value yet a 'study' with a sample size of 12 carries so much weight? Personally I know from the many times I've been spoiled/haven't been that I enjoy things far more when the suspense is left intact. Wanting to know what happens next is key to narrative and when you lose that it lessens enjoyment. My wife was spoilered on 'The Rains of Castamere' and it ruined it for her. I was shell-shocked while she sat there like it was any other episode. The most simple example is sports. When someone tells you the score beforehand it absolutely lessens the enjoyment of watching the game. That said, how can you even test if the same person enjoys a story more with/without spoilers, if they can only watch it for the first time once? Then again who gets attention when they use a proper sample size and come up with an expected result? You guys do realize that the "12" refers to the different stories they tested (three experiments, four stories each) and not the sample size (as in: number of participants in the study), which was well over 800? I can find ten studies to argue any point I want. I dont understand why a single study conducted once, which is considered conclusive in exactly zero fields, should be construed as damning proof that we dont mind spoilers when we say we do, or that most people dont mind spoilers. People find controversial studies that contradict common knowledge and use it as a cudgel to beat people with in silly conversations.
|
My theory: Vogel helps Dexter realize that Deb now fits the code. And it might even go full-on murder-suicide as an ending to the show.
|
There's just no way Dexter would kill Deb. Vogel has practically no influence on him right now, and I don't see her convincing him to murder the person he cares most about. It's far more likely he would kill Vogel for suggesting such a thing.
|
On July 12 2013 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
My theory: Vogel helps Dexter realize that Deb now fits the code. And it might even go full-on murder-suicide as an ending to the show.
Vogel helps Dexter realize that she does, Dexter uses Deb as bait, kills Vogel. This happens quickly, up until episode 5, in the beginning of episode 6 it becomes clear that Dexter made a massive mistake involving Deb not sticking up for him any more and Batista finally catching on. The following eps deal with the manhunt on Dexter, culminating in him being shot in combat by Batista. Not fatally, but he is then caught and one is lead to assume he's being toasted after the end of the show.
|
On July 12 2013 05:45 Meow-Meow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
My theory: Vogel helps Dexter realize that Deb now fits the code. And it might even go full-on murder-suicide as an ending to the show. Vogel helps Dexter realize that she does, Dexter uses Deb as bait, kills Vogel. This happens quickly, up until episode 5, in the beginning of episode 6 it becomes clear that Dexter made a massive mistake involving Deb not sticking up for him any more and Batista finally catching on. The following eps deal with the manhunt on Dexter, culminating in him being shot in combat by Batista. Not fatally, but he is then caught and one is lead to assume he's being toasted after the end of the show. What I REALLY want the show to end on, is a scene showing Dexter finish his narrative in an interrogation room, wherein we realize the narration, and everything we've seen has been a sort of confession from the future by Dexter.
|
On July 12 2013 06:35 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:45 Meow-Meow wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
My theory: Vogel helps Dexter realize that Deb now fits the code. And it might even go full-on murder-suicide as an ending to the show. Vogel helps Dexter realize that she does, Dexter uses Deb as bait, kills Vogel. This happens quickly, up until episode 5, in the beginning of episode 6 it becomes clear that Dexter made a massive mistake involving Deb not sticking up for him any more and Batista finally catching on. The following eps deal with the manhunt on Dexter, culminating in him being shot in combat by Batista. Not fatally, but he is then caught and one is lead to assume he's being toasted after the end of the show. What I REALLY want the show to end on, is a scene showing Dexter finish his narrative in an interrogation room, wherein we realize the narration, and everything we've seen has been a sort of confession from the future by Dexter.
Holy shit that is the coolest idea I've ever heard. Although many instances wouldn't really makes sense. Like the dentist scene or parents scene. Although I wish the show ended on a lighthearted note. Maybe with him cracking a joke at the end. Something reminiscent of the first 2 seasons.
|
On July 12 2013 11:36 Hyperbola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:35 Dazed_Spy wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Meow-Meow wrote:On July 12 2013 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
My theory: Vogel helps Dexter realize that Deb now fits the code. And it might even go full-on murder-suicide as an ending to the show. Vogel helps Dexter realize that she does, Dexter uses Deb as bait, kills Vogel. This happens quickly, up until episode 5, in the beginning of episode 6 it becomes clear that Dexter made a massive mistake involving Deb not sticking up for him any more and Batista finally catching on. The following eps deal with the manhunt on Dexter, culminating in him being shot in combat by Batista. Not fatally, but he is then caught and one is lead to assume he's being toasted after the end of the show. What I REALLY want the show to end on, is a scene showing Dexter finish his narrative in an interrogation room, wherein we realize the narration, and everything we've seen has been a sort of confession from the future by Dexter. Holy shit that is the coolest idea I've ever heard. Although many instances wouldn't really makes sense. Like the dentist scene or parents scene. Although I wish the show ended on a lighthearted note. Maybe with him cracking a joke at the end. Something reminiscent of the first 2 seasons. Well, ultimately you can kind of construe a certain disconnect between the images, the narration and reality, which I think thats fairly typical when they do these sorts of things in shows or cartoons. Like, consider any story in the simpsons, or whatever, that becomes a running episode. A huge chunk of the details either couldnt possibly be said [too much] or simply werent available to the person. Maybe it was the running imagination of the story teller or the listener tho? 
|
Too much strain on the viewers imagination, I fear.
|
Okay i know i'm late to the party, but i've basically done nothing but watching Dexter for the last two weeks and i finally arrived at Season 7 , Episode 3.
I found the first five seasons to be really good, especially two and four. Six was a bit meh but Debras reaction just killed me. "Hey you're a serial killer, lets get you into the 12 step program, no problem!"
I seriously find this so unbelievably bad i had to come here and post this.
|
On July 13 2013 10:37 Nyxisto wrote:
Okay i know i'm late to the party, but i've basically done nothing but watching Dexter for the last two weeks and i finally arrived at Season 7 , Episode 3.
I found the first five seasons to be really good, especially two and four. Six was a bit meh but Debras reaction just killed me. "Hey you're a serial killer, lets get you into the 12 step program, no problem!"
I seriously find this so unbelievably bad i had to come here and post this.
Her reaction seemed fine, it's not like she said "meh" like you're making out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
