Blogs:
Follow Us:
Get Instant Alerts

All More Options
Boards
TV Predictions Game

Interview: 'Sons of Anarchy' creator Kurt Sutter post-mortems season 4

On surprise plot twists, last-second reprieves and other highs and lows of the season

By Alan Sepinwall Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 4:01 PM

Interview: 'Sons of Anarchy' creator Kurt Sutter post-mortems season 4

"Sons of Anarchy" creator Kurt Sutter, in character as Big Otto.


Credit: FX

Are you a fan of Sons of Anarchy?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
"Sons of Anarchy" wrapped up its 4th season on Tuesday night, and I figured my review would be the last I'd have to say on the subject for a while. But the show's creator, Kurt Sutter, changed his mind about doing a season-ending interview with me, and we spoke for a little under an hour this afternoon about various developments and criticisms from throughout the season. Here's the Q&A; please note that Kurt talks vaguely about ways in which a few stories will carry over into the next season, and that we also talk about a story arc from the last few seasons of "The Shield," so read at your own risk:
 
How reverse-engineered was the season? Did you know going in that you wanted to end it with Jax on the throne, Clay out of the picture, etc.?

I kind of go in with a pretty solid sense of what the big mile markers are going to be. I knew we were going to do the whole dynamic with Tara, I was going to build to Clay ultimately putting himself in that box, and with Jax taking the president's patch. I knew that I ultimately, not unlike what we kind of did with Mackey, would trap Clay. To me, after everything we did with Clay, it was almost too easy to just put a bullet in his head. How do you ultimately punish that guy? It's to strip him of his power, strip him of his virility, and I want to play out some scenes next season where he's literally sitting in Piney's seat with an oxygen mask. To me, there's such a cool irony to play out that dynamic.

I knew that was going to go down. I didn't know exactly how we were going to work the Tara thing or what the threat would be. In fact, fucking up her hand was literally something we came up with on the script level. We needed that one more thing to push her to the dark side, to get her to ultimately that place with Jax. That's where we thought that taking away from her the thing that defines her was an interesting parallel with Jax, taking away the thing that defines her after he was about to get away from the things that defines him, which is the club.
 
At what point did you decide that Romeo and Luis were working for the CIA?
 
That was decided at the jump. It's a tricky thing. I don't know. I guess I just overestimated people's espionage experience. (laughs) I was afraid we were going to tip our hands on that storyline. What we tried to do was lay in clues throughout the piece. And then I just found myself pulling some of those back in post because I didn't want to tip my hand. At the very least, I feel like - whether you like the twist or not -  because we did know we would do it from the beginning, it wasn't something that was tacked on as a fix, if you go back and you watch those scenes, everything lines up, from them showing up in episode two to protect the club, to the little pieces of conversation between Romeo and Luis. And then especially with Tara. When Clay puts the hit on Tara, why doesn't that guy just roll up and put a bullet in the back of her head and take off? Why did they kidnap her? And the other clue that I thought everyone was going to pick up, I guess people thought it was bad casting, was we had those guys in the truck speaking Spanish, and they just took their hoods off and they were clean-cut white guys. We tried to lay in some clues, but I think I was so cautious about not wanting to tip that reveal. I think it worked in terms of everybody was surprised. But the fact that everybody's asking me when did you know suggests I may have pulled back a little too much.

You've read my review, so you've seen my take on that twist, and a lot of my readers were even more unhappy with it and said it felt like a cheat - that it came out of nowhere and wiped away all these stories you'd been telling. What would you say in response to that?
 
I created that arc from the beginning. I thought it would be an interesting commentary on law-enforcement. Everyone this season was usurped by a superior branch. Eli was usurped by Linc, Linc by the CIA. That to me was thematically kind of an interesting thing. I thought it was a fun, kinetic way to build to that story, and organically create a dynamic - what I wanted to end with was Jax really wanting to fulfill his desire. I didn't want to bring Jax, all of a sudden, 180 degrees, where "Oh, I don't want to go, I have to stay and take care of my club." To me that felt like bullshit. So the only thing that seemed like it would work is to put a gun to Jax's head: are you willing to destroy the club? He's not there because he wants to be; it's because he has to be. I had to create the dynamic where Clay had to stay alive, and that seemed like a compelling way to do that. I understand the reaction, and there's a part of me that felt that could be the perception. But if it was a cheat, if it was something I was writing stories towards, and It was, "Oh, fuck, how am I going to tie this together?" and I slapped it on at the end, then I'd think there'd be more reason for people to be upset, and I feel we did weave it into the fabric of the season.

Look, I was talking to (FX PR chief John) Solberg about this. When you're moving at such a fever pitch throughout the season, and with episodes that have such high intensity, I think there's just an expectation at the end for all of that to come. I told John that I think people wanted the Hindenburg, and I didn't. I don't think everyone can be satisfied. Looking at some of the comments, people's expectations, the only way I could have satisfied everybody would be to write a finale that would essentially end the series, and I'm not ready to do that.
 
Well, a lot of this season did feel like it could be the final season of the show if we didn't know it was the fourth and you wanted to continue for maybe seven. Maybe, in hindsight, are some of these stories that might have played out better in later seasons rather than at the series' mid-point?

I don't think so, man. I just feel like to prolong the John Teller original sin hanging over Jax's head for six or seven seasons, it would have gotten thin and really lost its potency. Season 3 helped set Jax up in terms of giving him some backstory on his dad, this season was the reveal on some of that backstory. And quite frankly, I know in your review you talked about the set-up for next season seems potentially less interesting for you. I knew I always wanted to play out at least a couple of seasons with Jax at the head of that table. In the evolution of the character, and the evolution of the prince, I think there's a lot of room for great drama in this guy trying to figure out what kind of king he wants to be. Can he be Clay without becoming Clay? Can he be John teller without suffering the fate of John Teller? What's Clay's phoenix moment in season 5 and 6?
 
It's interesting. We had some of the same conversations on the Shield when we did the thing with Lem. We came to the conclusion that it would be much more potent and much more fertile ground for drama to have a season or a season and a half where Vic knew what Shane did to Lem, and Shane was aware Vic knew. So you had this season where these guys wanted each other dead, and they had to swallow it and show up and work with each other, maintaining that dark secret, and it worked very well there. I thought, "Are we cheating ourselves, or cheating the fans, by Jax getting the information and just putting the bullet in clay's head?" He lives with the pain for three scenes and then takes the air out of that build. Why not explore that for a few seasons? How do they deal with that? How do they be brothers? How do they get each other's back  in times of crisis with this secret and this sense of betrayal that they feel? That was really the idea for it. I think there's room stories to be told in that dynamic.
 
You brought up the Vic/Shane/Lem situation in a few other interviews you did, and I went back and checked, and it's almost exactly 13 episodes between when Vic finds out what Shane did and when Shane goes on the run and they don't have to work with each other anymore. That's basically one season of the show, and that was probably as long as you could have gone with that. How long do you think Clay and Jax can co-exist? 

I think you're right. We'll jump into next season with a sense of playing that. Not that I want to spoil season 5, but it's not about suddenly we come back to the exact same dynamic. I really want to see Clay broken. What does this guy do to fucking strap his balls back on, and steam rising up. You didn't see that with the Vic/Shane dynamic. I think Clay has an interesting arc to play out with potentially Gemma and gathering his power base. Right now, the only one in his corner is Tig. I think there's something to be played out with that, but at some point, there has to be some sense of, if Clay does rise up and becomes a threat to Jax, you can only get so much out of that, because we've played a lot of that. So I don't know. I knew that this wasn't the time for Clay to go away. Whether he makes it through all seven seasons, I don't know.
 
You're talking a lot about the Jax/Clay dynamic, and that's the core of the show, but at this point Opie has just as much of a right to want Clay dead, if not more than Jax does. Opie's fate is up in the air at the end of the season, but he doesn't know what Jax knows, so how do you deal with that dynamic and plausibly keep Opie and Clay on the same side - twice now after what happened in season 2?

That will be the crux of the Opie arc next season. I knew one thing. I knew that after the struggle that Opie's had this season, and I dug the fact that this guy had to marry somebody else to finally start grieving Donna's death. I think all of that felt real, all of these guys aren't that self-aware and have the emotional skills to know how to deal with that shit. And to have the Piney death thrown into the mix. Which is why I felt it would be silly, almost, for Opie to suddenly sit at the table with Jax like that. I think it's going to take a while for Opie to come back, if he comes back. That dynamic will play out between Jax and Opie. He's definitely still part of the show, and I think there's a way to keep him part of the club. Him sitting across that table form Clay will be a difficult thing to do. I think that will probably be a lot of what the Opie/Jax relationship wrestles with in season 5.

Given that Jax chooses to tell Tara about Romeo, and given what a raw nerve Opie is right now, and how dangerous and unpredictable he is, why doesn't Jax tell him, too? Isn't he risking Opie just putting a bomb under Clay's car one day?

I think that will continue to play out. At this point, I think Jax is just trying to protect the information that he's just received. Knowing that he ultimately has to tell Tara, and trying to figure out how to keep Opie close. But I think you're right. Opie being in the wind will continue to be a threat to Clay and something that Jax has to rectify. Quite honestly, I just loved the dynamic of in that moment, with that information, I loved the way Charlie played the line in that scene with Opie where Opie asks him if he found anything out today, and Jax says, "Yeah, a little bit." All that shit's been downloaded on Jax in 24 hours. In that moment, he makes a decision to not violate the trust and give that information to Opie, because Opie's in an unpredictable state. For Jax to give Opie the information at that point probably feels more dangerous than potentially keeping it to himself. Opie's obviously a threat to Clay and will continue to be one, and that's a problem. The state of mind that Opie's in at that point, it feels too unstable for Jax to hand him that top-secret information.

One of the reasons everyone was so satisfied with last year's finale was that after the Sons had been manipulated by the Irish characters for most of the season, they got to seize control of their destinies again, and everything that happened was as a result of their choices, not someone else's. Most of this season was about Jax making choices, Clay making choices, Juice making choices, but in the end, everything is decided based on what Romeo wants. How much of the action on the show do you feel should be driven by what the main characters want versus what other people are deciding?

Obviously, there's both of that going on. But some of that, dude, quite frankly, I understand it's a show about our guys and our heroes, but the idea that the life itself is subject to so many variables. To me, I liked the fact that suddenly they're moving towards one thing and they think they have control of the situation, and the truth is, they don't. I think the season 3 finale was very satisfying, but I also think the experience of the season 3 finale was more enjoyable because I don't think people were as invested in the season. I think people were distracted by season 3 and not as plugged in. I think the finale of season 3 felt like, "Oh, this is what the show is and they're coming back." I think the experience people had for the finale in season 4 was the season was building at such an intense rate that ultimately, they wanted that intensity topped at the end, and I just didn't think that was good storytelling to put a bullet in somebody or blow it to hell. That was my thinking in terms of those two season finales.
Why does Jax not tell Opie more about their situation?
 
Two episodes this year built and built towards the death of a character, with Juice hanging himself and Opie shooting Clay. In both cases, the guys survived. How many times do you think you can comfortably do those kinds of cliffhangers?

I wouldn't say I go to it consciously. The truth is, I just didn't want to kill Juice because I really liked the actor a lot, and I knew what we were doing to Piney in episode 8. I felt it would have diminished both of those deaths if we had done them back to back like that. I didn't necessarily see the shooting of Clay as necessarily a cliffhanger, you know? Meaning that with Juice, yes, there was definitely a sense of he's dead, and then the branch breaks and he's not. With Clay, I guess there was a perception because he took a couple of bullets, but we get out of that so quick that to me, there wasn't a sense of finality of, "Oh, he's dead," and then we come back and not. There was a sense of, "Are they going to let him die? Is Opie going to put another bullet in him?" It's not a device I consciously go to in terms of telling that story. It was the best way to do that, I feel, to really tell the story in that moment.
 
Getting back to what you said before about how Jax is forced to stay, how much legal jeopardy is he actually in if Potter's case comes back to life? Could he just walk away, or would he be in just as much trouble as the rest of them?

I think that there's a sense that if RICO goes down, they'd all go down, unless he cuts some kind of deal. The idea is that they have enough on these guys to bring them down. Obviously, they want to cast a bigger net. For me, the idea that if Jax undermines this deal, at that point, Romeo is going to hand back over to the feds to process them. Don't forget: there may be more steps to do that, but we've seen the information established, and we know that the case is ready to go. It's significant leverage for Romeo. But I do think that Jax would be part of that. But I think the bigger thing for Jax is really, the idea that he's willing to walk away from the club, but it's still too much a part of him to let it all just fucking go away. I really wanted to create a dynamic where it just felt too easy for Jax to read those letters and then to say, "Oh, Clay killed my father and now I have to stay here and avenge my father's death and fix the club because that's where you wanted," that felt a little too Shakespearean and a little too unrealistic with everything we'd done with Jax's season, the revelations he'd had in jail and desire to take care of his family. To have him throw that out and say "I have to do this for my father" didn't have enough weight for me and didn't feel real. It was really about choosing between the life or death of SAMCRO, and he couldn't let it die. So he is sort of being forced to stay, and what does that look like, with that element in play? He's a guy who still loves his family, still wants to get them out, but he's forced to stay and keep the secret to keep them alive. Does that ultimately impact his ability to lead? Does that all go away and he gets caught up in the life he knows? Does he lose focus of his family and his other desire to get out? I think that creates more internal conflict for the character.

You referred before to the guys in the club as "heroes," or maybe that's just how the viewers look at them. The episode where Tara was abducted and injured her hand seemed to have as its theme the idea that the club is a cancer that destroys everything it touches, and that no one can get away with it. Is that how you feel about the club at this stage of the series? Is that how you want the audience to feel?

What I enjoy about the nature of the world and the things we do on the show is that we embellish and we, in a pulpy way, we build up these themes of brotherhood and freedom and power. It's all the things that people plug into the subculture for. But there's also the underbelly of that world, which is incredibly dangerous and incredibly violent. For me, what I like to do is, as we're moving along and playing with these other themes and values in terms of what the MC is, to then have those moments where we slap the people in the face and go, "Don't forget: this is who these people really are. They are racists, or have racist roots that are part of the club's foundation. They are guys who beat the fucking shit out of their women." Jax says it in the beginning, in the first episode: "We've lost focus." It's not about brotherhood, it's about greed. The idea of these guys you love are also incredibly dangerous and despicable. For me as a storyteller, I like playing with that notion, of pulling people in and saying, "We love these guys and they're funny and they would kill for each other - and, oh yeah, by the way, they're this, too." There's that constant sense of push and pull. I'd like to think that helps make the show more interesting to watch and more compelling to play out those two things.
 
As I said in my blog, if it was just a straight drama of what that life really was like, it's fucking dark, man. I love these guys and I go to toy runs and I hang out with them, but it's not like I would want to be part of that on a daily basis. And yet I can't just play out the Peter Fonda of it all where it's just open road and parties and brotherhood and love. We all read the newspapers. I just had a long conversation with a guy from the New York Times doing an expose on the rise of violence in MCs. We know what the world is. I guess I'm trying to honor both of those and use it as a device to smack 'em around a little bit. I think that's my point of view of it too. The point of view is the one I have about that world, too. I do find it fascinating and exciting, and the level of brotherhood and commitment, and militaristic guidelines, but I'm very aware. I've lost two guys already that I've done research with, both of them under 30 years old, who've been killed since the show began. I'm very aware of the dark side of the life as well.
 
You brought up that blog entry from yesterday, and at one point there was the notion that people shouldn't take some aspects of the show too seriously - that in your intention, it's a pulpy soap opera. In last week's episode, for instance, there's the car chase from Oakland to Charming, and the Sons are in a shootout while they're riding past row after row of abandoned, empty cars. A lot of people started questioning the reality of that, and that comes up from time to time. To what standard do you want your fans and viewers of this show to hold it, in terms of reality and quality?

I don't know what the standard is. I just think that sometimes, I love what I do, I think I do it well, and I feel like sometimes the analysis of this show, people are missing some of the point of it - or at least the function of it. That's just my perception of it, whether it's true or not. All that stuff is true. The guys I know in the life, they love this show, but they love it because it's a soap opera. They laugh at me at the shit we do, that it's so over the top and would never happen. The prospects give me shit all the time, because the guys on our show treat the prospects way better than in real clubs.
 
In terms specifically of that shootout? The interesting thing I try to do on the show - and, yes, sometimes the absurdity is the absurdity, and we never call focus to it - but Jax shooting that dude in that chase scene doesn't mean it's not going to have ramifications. Obviously, it'll have ramifications with Laroy, but were there witnesses? What did Laroy do with that body? That's stuff we quite often like to play with. I try not to let things just happen in a vacuum, violent things. The stuff we did with Luann in season 2, I think people felt like that was something that happened in a vacuum, but we got to play with that this season, and it became an integral platform for a story arc. Although some of that shit happens as a device, we'll come back to play with that.

But in terms of your question and the standard I expect people to watch the show with? I don't know what that is, and I can't impose it and control how people watch the show. That's just what I do on my blog: I get to vent about what frustrates me sometimes when I read these reviews. I think, quite frankly, and we never experienced it on "The Shield," because there weren't so many people blogging on every line and moment. The scrutiny of hundreds of people commenting on every episode and scene, I think at a certain point, the scrutiny gets a little absurd and overwhelming. I think it was more a response to that. I have no standard by which I want people to watch the show. I just know that, for me, some of the things we do are just the pulpy nature of the show. It's what I enjoy doing creatively, and it helps keep the show entertaining, and as I said in that blog, it's the things that make the brutality and the ugliness of the world a little more palatable. It distances itself from the reality of the show a little.
 
UPDATE: Sutter emailed me a follow-up thought on how the finale wound up being cut into two pieces at the last minute (which is a question I meant to ask but never got around to). Here's what he wrote: 
in retrospect, seeing the reaction of some critics and fans, i think splitting the finale into two parts did not serve the show.  i stand by the story and the twists, but i feel like somehow i assumed people would sew 413 and 414 together as a viewing experience.  see it as first the half and the second half (that's why i called it act 1 and act 2).  i realize now that i put the expectations of an entire season on an hour of tv that was really only half-structured.  meaning, 414 was never written as an episode, so structurally it was off.    
 
why did i do that?  well, when you're sitting in post with a cut that's 28 minutes over, trying to figure out what story arc to gut, you look for solutions.  i couldn't get a two-hour finale (it's a union thing, turns it into long-form tv which impacts every rate from the ground up), adding the extra episode seemed like a valid (and generous of the network and studio) solution.  i found a natural break in the story and recut both of them as separate hours.  413 got the lion's share of action and energy, 414 got the reveal and slower emotional decisions.  i think if i delivered 413 as a one 90-minute episode, although the story would be the same, the viewing experience of the finale would have been much more satisfying.  honestly, and this is the truth, i just didn't want to cheat the fans -- i wanted to give them all of it.  and critically, i'm paying for that.  more lessons.  
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
Related Searches: Sons of Anarchy, Kurt Sutter, Charlie Hunnam, Ron Perlman, Katey Sagal, Maggie Siff, Alan Sepinwall

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest

  • Option 2

    Connect

  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 122 Comments
  • Default-avatar

    Jeff G Nice interview Alan and respect to Kurt for going through with it even though he obviously takes criticism very hard. Although I was disappointed with the finale and parts of the season, after reading this and Kurt's other interviews, I appreciate what his intentions were and why he wrote things certain ways. I do really like where the show is at going into season 5 and I'm excited for that. At least knowing that there is an end for the show in mind, he can't keep doing the gonna die / end up surviving storylines for ever.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:15PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      K2489 im doing a story ^acts like a tight Fagalay also known to be a very straight man hey maybe im acting like Steven Speilberg^ is very deep cover I might even go back to DeathMasters when the Guy went straight to Hell after the Vampire bite from the Vampire,straight to Hell underneath tot he Neithlands.Remmember that Vamp we had inthe MDC last year ahh. when we were DEA Agents woou!! wooou!!! it got Vein after that,as I point towards an ADA those CRackers!! will hound yo for Life,weird wins in Nascar uhm mmm ^OOHHH im on my Dad's or Dale Junior is dating David Mccool^ ohh the Vamp to leave a long story short ****** City one Vamp Osama off the map.Also was there weird wins in Nascar after the Seals that died good one for Star Spangle Bangles will leave that there,but yes there was a deep cver with the Department and the Government as you might know ******* uhm that's good enough,do you also know Power****** ahh. anyways FIERCE OHH IT GOT FIERCE ALGITH Jennifer Ganier put those away for now

      !

      !

      ! ^say like deep cover into a another demision as the MDC filled up with the uncontrolable drug scene in the depts of the Streets,you wake up then you open your eyes then you become an Agent and you can't get out your in Hell,lets see if they put mine,and Uncle Vonnie's and Dale Earnheart Juniors drawings on the air again this well that Vamp in Sheriff's custody Federal hold on some RAIN!!!,I soound kinda country for that last say^

      January 14, 2012 at 12:20AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      K2489 THEY SAY USE THESE,ARE GUYS HALF RETARDED ^THEY USE THIS^ VIVA!! LAS VEGAS!!! VIVA LAS VEGAS!!! VIVA!! LAS VEGAS!!! THAT'S AGOOD ISSUE TO SETTLE ON LEFT BANNANA'S VIVA!! LAS VEGAS!!!

      January 15, 2012 at 2:02AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      K2489 now for the Agents Lewis's and 50 JT's as you follow my Life,how get End this with some Privacy oooooOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUoooooooo times of times of times for the Drifts ^you fall away as Madonna sings her song^ to catch muah Beats as I jog with true man on my track and think of the fine Erica Biticker that I dated threw out my years in School ^uhm also Red. Ora Lendal^ I guess that Ended in a weekend Uncle Eric

      !

      !

      !

      January 15, 2012 at 5:47PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    geoffzilla Good interview. I didn't think the CIA thing came out of nowhere (as in made up at the last minute) but I thought it was sprung on us way too conveniently and too Deux-Ex-Machina. Kurt should have let more information come out about it, even if someone might have figured it out. Plus, I'm still not too clear why a government funded drug cartel would need a mid-level outlaw MC club to broker a link with the Real IRA for guns. Wouldn't the CIA have ready access to any kind of weaponry needed?

    I don't mind so much that Clay is still around, but the point of "following through with risks" is something that I think Kurt needs to do. The acting is great, I'm sure he doesn't want to put anyone out of work; but the same way that killing Deputy Hale in s3 made the story work even if we didn't want to see him go, you have to be willing to follow through with the hard choices. It's time for consequences.

    Props to Kurt for swinging away from the douchebag side though :)

    December 8, 2011 at 4:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Tyler I think you hit good points, here. I, too, thought the CIA reveal was a Deus ex Machina, but at the same time it explains the Tara kidnapping and white kidnappers. It made sense to me, even if a few more clues could have been dropped. Then again, in this day and age, if they had dropped more clues we would have blown up Twitter with "OMG Galindo is CIA! So obvious. #Dexter"

      WRT to why the CIA need SAMCRO, I would point to Project Gunrunner, in which the US Government allowed guns known to be headed to the Mexican cartels out of the country. If the CIA wanted to arm the Galindo cartel, this is a better way to go about it than trying to relive Iran-Contra.

      December 8, 2011 at 5:57PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matt @Tyler:

      If the CIA wants to hook the cartel up with illegal weapons, it has connections all over the world through which it could do that. In point of fact, most of the automatic weapons and nearly all of the heavier weaponry (rocket launchers, explosives, etc.) that the Mexican cartels buy come not from the U.S., but from Central and South America -- and from the Mexican military and police. Wanting to avoid reliving Iran-Contra does not explain why the Sons are essential. It simply is not plausible that the CIA needs this one tiny, minor league biker gang in northern California in order to funnel weapons to a Mexican cartel.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:40AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      ROB I think the deus ex machina feelings are due to the fact it came in right at the start of the episode - if it came 60 minutes in to a 90 minute finale it wouldn't have felt so out of left field. BTW, I did wonder about the white guys in the van, and was pleased it wasn't my first thought (which was Gemma or Jax crippling her so she stayed in Charming)

      December 9, 2011 at 2:54PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chad Really great stuff here. Good job, Alan for sticking to your guns. And yes, respect to Sutter for doing an interview he really didn't want to do. LOL. From what I've read on his blog and other interviews, I believe as viewers we were looking at this show a bit too realistically. That's fair. However...you can't tell people to treat it like a soap opera and then bitch because you don't win Emmys. I do agree with him that the actors on this show give a tremendous performance week in and week out (Sutter included when he portrays Otto)

    December 8, 2011 at 4:36PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tossit Good interview. I can respect that he knew what the end game was going to be and how he was going to do it, but I still think it was not well done. The CIA thing just undid everything, there were no consequences for anything that happened during the season.

    It did leave an interesting set up with Jax as president, so I'll keep watching

    December 8, 2011 at 4:39PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Soam I respect Sutter for doing this interview, but it unfortunately didn't put my mind at ease about the direction of the show. I'm done. If Sutter had come out and said, i'm not happy with season 4 we're going to do things differently next season, that would hook me back in, but this is his vision. This show reminds me a lot of Dexter, it has the networks biggest success and they are finding ways to run in circles for season after season without making any dramatic changes.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:40PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    ScottyScott Well done Alan. We appreciate your honest questions that express our opinion as well as yours. Unfortunately, Sutter is better off not doing interviews like this to combat criticism. Answers like "he didn't die b/c I like the actor" or "I didn't have these developed characters do the logical we'd expect because we have too many seasons left" are unacceptable to fans of the show. Don't start storylines or plan this 7 season show in a way that makes you rationalize decisions with reasons like those. They've done a great job at developing some of these characters, but all that gets thrown out the window when they act irrationally, against character, or solely at the service of the storyline. Gemma is probably the most guilty of this. It's like she works for the writers of the show, has entered the matrix, and goes around pulling strings to either draw out storylines or push other characters into story-helping decisions that they otherwise wouldnt make. The show is great at building tense moments. As of now, that's all I can give it credit for. It's a shame.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:44PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ScottyScott This full season including the finale has confirmed one valuable lesson for me. Breaking Bad is the only masterful show on TV. I don't fully trust any other showrunners to promise me satisfactory returns on my hours of invested time. Let's hope Boardwalk/Homeland/Thrones can build to this level of trust.

      December 8, 2011 at 5:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      geoffzilla Thing is, Breaking Bad is completely made up as Vince goes along. It's a testament to great talent and/or great luck that he hasn't hit a wrong beat so far, though the end of S2 was a bit too convenient. I get that SOA may have a seven season structure in Sutter's head that he wants to follow, but my unprofessional and inexperienced opinion is to not be afraid to deviate from that structure if the story begins to pull away from it. Let the story be the guide, not the destination and the journey you thought you had...

      December 8, 2011 at 6:39PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Greg Slight nuance to Breaking Bad--Breaking Bad season 2 was rigorously plotted out in advance. It was only after Gilligan had worked with his writers & they'd developed a shorthand for working together--and, as a group, wanted to experiment, that they chose the more free-flowing season 3. And s3 worked so well they did it again with season 4 (though I think they had a couple of the big plot points worked out in advance.)

      December 8, 2011 at 7:18PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      the minister @SCOTTYSCOTT: Well, I can *definitely* promise you that Game of Thrones won't be ANYthing like Dexter.

      It might be over-condensed; it might be sexpositional, but man, Game of Thrones will NOT forgo whacking characters or advancing the story.

      Yeah, that I can promise ya.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:41PM EST
  • Stas_talkback_profile

    AshyLarry81 This season was fantastic and I can't wait to see what Sutter has in store for season 5

    December 8, 2011 at 4:45PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Kevin On this part:

    "And then especially with Tara. When Clay puts the hit on Tara, why doesn't that guy just roll up and put a bullet in the back of her head and take off? Why did they kidnap her? "

    Why do they have to make it a kidnapping at all? Romeo claims they were going to debrief her. Why not walk up to her, show her some credentials, tell her that Clay is out to kill her, and hide her away somewhere until the IRA/Cartel deal is done and Clay is in jail? You can have Romeo tell Clay it's been done.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:47PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield Because Jax was there. I imagine their hope was to snatch her cleanly and scare her into not telling him what was going on. It had to look real. Plus, that way he has more reason to go against the other cartel

      December 8, 2011 at 4:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      tossit ....and to hurt Tara's hand haha

      December 8, 2011 at 4:54PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kevin They didn't HAVE to do it when Jax ws there. It could have waited until she was at the conference or whatever it wsa. Plot convenience is more likely the answer. And to hurt Tara's hand.

      December 8, 2011 at 4:59PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      bluegiraffe Wait, wasn't the kidnapping attempt already underway when they found out Jax was there? Didn't they plan for it to just be Tara and the boys? Or am I remembering wrong?

      December 9, 2011 at 12:07AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Angie @bluegiraffe.. Yes, you're right. Clay put the call in the day before. It wasn't until after Tara and Jax left that Clay found out when Gemma told him. Clay called Romeo to stop the hit because Jax was with her and the kids. Romeo said it was too late to stop it.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:28PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Happy Fascinating interview. The tension was palpable. Alan doesn't shy away from criticism, and Kurt is very aware of how people receive his show. Kurt has subtly jabbed at Alan a couple of times, once in yesterday's blog and another time maybe one month ago, in the context of most bloggers and reviewers implementing too much scrutiny and moving at such a rapid rate to stay ahead of the other hundreds of bloggers.

    I think Alan's criticism of the show's flaws is valid, but I also think that Kurt is 100% correct in that he isn't trying to make this show "The Wire". It's not meant to be 100% realistic. It is an adrenaline-infused soap opera. There are moments of absurdity, i.e. shootouts, but like Kurt said these things don't happen in a vacuum.

    My take on witnesses to some of the shooting crimes is that most citizens in Charming don't get in the way of the Sons out of fear.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:48PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Kevin By 'subtly jabbed', you mean internet tough guy Sutter calling him out by name, and using the term 'half-c*nt' to refer to him, I guess.

      December 8, 2011 at 5:02PM EST

    • @Kevin, He's a volatile, arrogant d-bag sometimes but I'd hardly refer to Sutter as "an internet tough guy." No offense to Alan but my money's on Sutter in a back alley brawl.

      December 8, 2011 at 5:59PM EST

    • I don't think being able to kick Alan Sepinwall's ass does much to enhance to Sutter's "tough guy" credentials.

      I think Sutter knocks around strawmen in his blog. No one's complaining about SOA because of the shoot outs or clown castration. It's not that these characters behave in ridiculous ways that's problematic. It's that when they're doing something ridiculous and unrealistic because it's necessary for his plot, it's super obvious. And that's not shootouts on a highway, that's betraying the club over something seemingly small (like an old racist rule) thereby guaranteeing it blows up into something big so you can milk tons of drama out of a situation all season because you know you have a built-in escape plan for it.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:18PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Leo2 Good post Christopher. I scratched my head at the clown castration comment on his blog too because if anything that was an example of something that really worked well.

      It's the obvious plot manipulations at the expense of character credibility that's a problem.

      I know the show can't be all things to all people, but hopefully some of these critiques and comments can be taken to heart and not seen as frivolous.

      December 8, 2011 at 8:00PM EST

    • Totally agree with you about the strawmen arguments. Sutter can't deal with criticism of his work so he deflects it by trying to change the conversation.
      My point to the original "Internet tough guy," comment is that Sutter is pretty fucking crazy . And crazy people can be dangerous. He seems to have at a minimum spent some time with some pretty dangerous folks in order to create this show. It's been rumored that he's gotten into some almost physical altercations with Charlie Hunam (doesn't seem like a shrinking violet either).

      He's a maddeningly inconsistent writer and that finale was certainly lacking all over... That said I don't know if I'd want to get into a beef with the guy.

      December 8, 2011 at 8:28PM EST
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall My heart swells with your belief in my ability as a back-alley fighter, guys. Thanks!

      December 8, 2011 at 8:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Leo2 *snort*

      December 8, 2011 at 8:50PM EST

    • "You're gonna eat lightnin' and you're gonna crap thunder!"
      Alan, you'd make it interesting for sure. The term "scrappy" comes to mind. But in the end crazy beats scrappy every time.

      December 8, 2011 at 9:46PM EST
    • Tattoo_talkback_profile

      Hatfield I dunno, I'm pretty sure Sepinwall's got size and reach on him. I think this one's a stay-away

      December 9, 2011 at 1:42AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      the minister Yeah, Sutter is a real tough guy.

      How do ya' reconcile that with him being too big a pussy to, say, kill off a character on his show?

      Ya don't. He's a narrative fop, a mincing Dexterfied wimp.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:47PM EST
  • Tattoo_talkback_profile

    Hatfield First off, I'm glad Sutter actually did this. Granting interviews to TVLine or EW, places that are much more hype-oriented, while shunning you and others who had issues with the season was a weak move. A strong interview.

    His blog post did bring up an interesting idea about the show and how people are viewing it. Ever since the last two episodes of Season 2 I've found myself wrestling with expectation vs. enjoyment, and it's absolutely because we've seen the level of serious drama the show can pull off when it has a mind to. This season could have been my favorite; instead it landed in 3rd. But I don't begrudge Sutter any of that, since it is his vision, his story.

    What I do begrudge him is his inability to deal with criticism. If you put something out there to be consumed by a mass audience it's not gonna be beloved across the board. There are people who hate The Beatles. (Not that SOA is The Beatles of TV, but you get it.) The other thing is, just because we question aspects of it doesn't mean we suddenly hate it. I groan at shows I love all the time!

    Anyway, I will be back for next year, and I'm very excited to see the reconfigured clubhouse. Chibs and Juice were very prominent this year, and I hope it continues.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:52PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      todmod Yes, it is good that Sutter did this, mainly because of a very funny post from Season 2 on his own blog:

      http://sutterink.blogspot.com/2009/11/sepinwall-on-sons.html

      "Wanted to share this article from one of the smarter critics out there. I love the way Alan Sepinwall critiques and challenges TV. His reviews aren't just snarky opinions, they're brainstorming sessions where he asks as many questions as he does give answers. This is a guy who fucking loves television and desperately wants it to be/get/stay good. Anyway, he's digging SOA right now, so I know it's easy for me to pat him on the back. Just remember I said all this in case he's trashing me next season."

      Skip to season 4:
      "Some critics get it. Ken Tucker, Matt Zoller Seitz revel in the giddy truth. Sepinwall and others continue to bang their heads against a wall, applying a level of analysis that is best reserved for a David Simon show. "

      In other words: love the in-depth analysis when they like the show! When they find flaws, they're just looking at it the wrong way.

      December 8, 2011 at 5:10PM EST

    • LOL

      December 8, 2011 at 6:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      p. @todmod: agreed. But to give Sutter his due, I'm glad he reconsidered the post-mortem, and went about it decently. Not satisfied with the season finale, but I do still like the show, but I'll be sticking around for next fall.

      December 8, 2011 at 9:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jamie Seriously. As soon as I saw that he was doing postmortems with Ausiello, I laughed hysterically. But at least he made it the entire interview without asking him for scoops about regionals on Glee or what was going to happen with Chuck and Blair on Gossip Girl.

      I think that was Sutter's rock-bottom moment and immediately screamed "get Sepinwall on the phone! Now!"

      December 9, 2011 at 6:30AM EST

    • In fairness to Sutter, I read the blog entry from last month after the episode, "Hands," aired and he was lamenting the nature of tv blogging then too.

      He is a loudmouth that probably need less venues to express his opinion but that doesn't mean he's entirely off base when it comes to the nature of the tv criticism.

      Truthfully, I don't really have the desire to dissect every episode of a tv show right after it airs. I'm sure Alan doesn't either, but this is the paradigm that has been built with the immediacy of the interwebs: How do we feel about this right now?

      I'm not discounting or excusing the many plot contrivances that Sutter used during the fourth season, but when I look at the season as one part of a larger narrative I can understand the motives behind the plot contrivances. I think Sutter's "lament" is largely based on the idea of being "graded" on an episode by episode basis rather than the season as a whole.

      I still don't like where the season went but I can respect Sutter's rationale for taking it there. And realizing that there's more to the story makes me inclined to see where the rest of this goes.

      December 9, 2011 at 5:21PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    George At least FX still has Justified. I am more disappointed with shape of FX Line up now. American Horror Story is terrible and S.O.A lost it's chance at being great show. Still has chance of leaving behind legacy as a good one.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:53PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      the minister Man, if only Terriers had been named "Terriers P.I" (or something better.)

      December 10, 2011 at 11:45PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Eric Great interview! Kurt is really well spoken and I absolutely appreciate his intentions with the show. Not every episode can be a "wham, bam, thank you mam" and sometimes I really enjoy a quieter episode that deals with the emotions of the characters instead of just intense action (not that I don't like that too!)
    I've never had any desire to ride a motorcycle or be in to that culture, but Sons is probably one of my favorite shows on TV right now, and I think that shows the power of good story-telling

    December 8, 2011 at 4:55PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ollie Still disagree with Sutter on a lot of things, but you have to give him credit on finally taking his meds and calming down a bit.

    December 8, 2011 at 4:58PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Puss_in_boots_320_talkback_profile

    JedyKnight I'm really glad this interview did take place. I am a fan of SOA and a fan of Sepinwall's reviews (even if i dont agree in all his views), and Kurt's rant against respected reviewers did upset me a little. But with this i think we can put that behind, and get back to rational discussions about a show we all care about.

    December 8, 2011 at 5:00PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    chris I have to give Sutter some props for sitting down with Sepinwall and discussing the show. Clearly the man is enjoying what he's doing with the show and more power to him for that. I think that may have blinded him a bit to the the audience perceives it vs. his own perception though. Telling us that the show is meant to be a pulpy adrenaline power soap opera NOW is a little weird to me because it certainly didn't seem like that to me during season two. Maybe the stars aligned correctly in season two and we read too much into what we saw on screen, maybe he's just lower expectations. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy the show but I have to agree with Al that the consecutive cliff hanger deaths, the reset story-lines, and maybe having little forward movement to show for a season's worth of episodes is a little frustrating. when you train us not to expect lasting consequences for the bad stuff the characters do, the suspense is gone and I guess we're just supposed to enjoy watching charismatic characters doing bad things for the visceral fun of it?

    December 8, 2011 at 5:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Sara "Little forward movement to a show for a season's worth of episodes"? I'm having a hard time with some of the push back on the finale. The entire dynamic of sons of anarchy has changed-- Clay is no longer sitting at the head of the table, he knows that Gemma gave Jax the letters, both Jax and Tara know that Clay tried to have her killed-- these arent consequences for what took place during this season but they're certainly movement. I've been thinking about this for days now- I'm actually really pleased with the finale, I think that some of the criticism stems from witnessing all of these new dynamics at the end of the season and getting caught up in the fact that it's over rather than considering where it has the potential to now go.

      December 10, 2011 at 3:34PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Clay After reading Sutter I can understand what his intentions were but it doesn't really change the "letdown" factor of that finale. I can respect that he wanted to hold some stuff back for future seasons but I've gotta have more than what I saw on Tuesday.

    I'd find all this a lot more palatable if Jax just had a "sit down" with Opie and laid it all out for him. I understand what Sutter said about Opie's "instability," but I just think it sets the table for the next season much better to have Jax have a true ally and confidant in the club (not lncluding Tara).

    I like the insight that these showrunner post-mortems give me as a fan but they also come off a little weird sometimes. Especially given Alan's tenuous professional relationship with a guy like Sutter, it's hard to convey the tone of a conversation like this through the written word. Kudos to both parties for having what seems to be a civil conversation.

    December 8, 2011 at 5:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    alynch I think this interview would've been better if Kurt & Alan conducted it while arm wrestling.

    December 8, 2011 at 5:43PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SP I ultimately just think it's hard to do a story like this in the post-Wire landscape. We've already seen Stringer Bell die. Major characters can leave a show when the plot demands it and the show can still be really strong. Sutter basically says the only reason Clay did not die is because there are a few interesting things that could be done next season if he doesn't. So he came up with an entire season where everything happens that would lead to him dying, but a few far-fetched things happen at the end so we can have the good parts of him dying (Jax's ascendency) without the negative aspects of it. That just isn't satisfying story-telling. If Clay steals money from the club and gets demoted from the Presidency, I'm fine. But if you have him either attempt to kill or actually kill two different character's fathers and wives, and both are fully aware of this, he needs to die.

    To be honest, I think the main problem for Sutter with killing Clay isn't even losing Clay's character. I think it's Gemma. She's an insanely strong character. And I imagine it would be very hard to keep her relavent if she isn't the wife of someone in the club. Losing two strong, important characters is very hard, but I don't think that justifies keeping Clay alive. It seems like a cop out because you're not confident enough that you can tell a compelling story without the focus being on these characters.

    Regardless, I'm still going to keep watching the show. I like the characters and it's fun. But I think at one point I had much higher expectations than it simply being "fun."

    December 8, 2011 at 5:49PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Dezbot Gemma stays relevant as the mother of the new "king." If Jax and Clay were both gone, then it would be harder to keep her relevant (unless Tig becomes the next president and she hooks up with him).

      December 9, 2011 at 4:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Leo2 Thanks so much. I appreciate the interview Alan and Kurt.

    What Kurt said here made me more enthusiastic about the future of the series than I was from actually watching it - and that may be part of the problem for me. This whole idea of a 7 year arc and coming back later on to follow up on dropped plot threads can be really problematic and often feel wrong - you end up with characters reacting to events too far afterwards. Just one example being Opie's anger at Clay after Donna's killing.

    I really do get that writing this story and keeping it all together is hard work, and I am clearly entertained or I wouldn't be here. But I wish that the show aimed for higher than being a soap, and I hope that every season (episode!) would be satisfying in itself and not just in retrospect as being a piece of a larger puzzle.

    (And as an aside - I thought the clues were there for Luis especially working for the feds, but were countered by his and Romeo's ease with whipping out automatic weapons and killing all those around them. Showing Romeo as brutal and sadistic as he was from the start seemed like a deliberate mislead, or worse to me, a inaccurate look at the role of the FBI and CIA. Not saying that there aren't rogues or bad people, but it's so not an acceptable way for them to function. The legal system doesn't allow it and puts up all sorts of blocks to those types of means justifying those kinds of ends)

    December 8, 2011 at 5:50PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tim_isola That doesnt make me feel one bit better about the direction of the show. He basically recycled everything he said in all his other post mortem interviews and defended everything. All im gonna remember is his blog post yesterday and how utterly dissapointing it is to realize how he views this show. I can no longer take it seriously and it seems like he will continue to ridiculously draw shit out, hold things back and have us continue to know alot more than the characters do and frustrate us beyond belief until maybe the final season.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:37PM EST Reply to Comment

    • At least we got 2 great seasons of TV out of this show. 2 and a half for me bec i really dug the back half of season 3 even tho most didnt. Thats more then you get from alot of shows. Its very hard to sustain greatness when you get to a 4th and 5th season. Very few shows have done that, and now that we know Sutter doesnt see this show as comparable to those, we can just accept it i guess.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:11PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    tim_isola "i like the actor" thats why he didnt kill juice. Wow. And knowing now how insignificant the whole juice story ended up being , only makes it that much worse that he decided to ruin what would of been a beautiful, haunting , powerful moment at the end of "fruit for the crows". I think it would of shown trememdous balls to kill off 2 fairly major characters in back to back episodes, he thinks it woulod of been stupid to do that. That is the exact kinda show i want this to be and apparently he wants the opposite. SOA has just moved wayyyy down my list, from a formerly high position.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:41PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Earl Sweatpants Great read, it's terrific to hear Sutter's own words, enough with the nonsense. Seems like a good enough dude, hopefully he uses the criticism to better his work.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:56PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    susan Vince Gillian loves Giancarlo Esposito, but that didn't stop Vince from blowing Gus to hell, lesson? Vince has stones, Sutter does not. (Not that SOA is on par with BB, it's not but the way some critics fawned over SOA this season, you'd think it was the second coming)

    This interview confirms that bascially Juice is never going to get what he deserves, death, and neither is Clay, heck Otto will probably get pardonned and ride off into the sunset.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      alynch Didn't Gilligan initially plan on killing Jesse early on, but then backtrack because he liked Aaron Paul?

      December 8, 2011 at 9:49PM EST

    • No he backtracked because Aaron Paul gave one of the best peformances in tv history and made the show immensly better and Gilligan was smart enough to realize that. Juice on the other hand....lol

      December 8, 2011 at 10:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    hockey guy I'm glad Sutter did this since I like both him and Alan. Hearing what Sutter had to say helps me better accept this season and it's flaws. I guess I do need to change my expectations of what this show is and how he tells it's stories. I was ready to check out after the past 2 seasons but now I'll jump back on the train and just enjoy the ride for what it is. What Sutter said about changing the dynamic between Clay, Jax and the club makes me more interested in next season than I was yesterday. Still my favorite show on TV but "The Shield" is on a whole other level and I need to stop expecting it to be as good as that was. Alan, keep up the good work. Loving reading you and thank you Kurt Sutter for deciding to do this.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:35PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tim_isola It seems more and more that this intended 7 season arc is all about him cashing in off this very successful show hes created, running it as long as he can and being set up for life off of it. And you cant fault him for that i suppose, this is his cash cow. But its clear he doesnt have 7 seasons worth of riveting, ballsy, honest story to get there with. The obvious plot devices at the expense of credibility are downright insulting to the audience. He thinks hes being unpredictable, but most of us are watching this show knowing somehow some way they are always gonna get out of every tight spot and everything will go on, and that in itself has become predictable and laughable. This show is at its best when it deals with the internal struggles of the club and the family, that alone is enough to make a great show, we've seen that in seasons 1 and 2. He needs to scale it down, less of the irish, the cartel, the mayans, the niners, law enforcement, etc, thats when the show becomes messy and dumbed down. But it doesnt sound like hes intent on changing anything, i wish i would of seen him just take a little ownership that maybe he got a few things wrong.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:44PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      alynch If his goal was cashing in, he wouldn't be on FX.

      December 8, 2011 at 9:51PM EST

    • oh ok, thanks

      December 8, 2011 at 10:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      ireneinidaho Or maybe FX is the only place that would let him do this show this way.

      December 10, 2011 at 12:24AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sojourner For me, the issue isn't whether any individual twist is believable. The CIA reveal, for example, is entirely believable if you know CIA history and ballsy to point out. But that somehow the twists overwhelm the world, and are so transparently deus ex machinas. I can almost see Sutter holding the puppet strings in episodes, and it yanks me out of immersion. it's very cleverly plotted, but you can see the cleverness, which somehow robs it of heart. There's nothing new about that kind of plotting - think the 1930s adventure "how will our heroine escape this week" stuff. I think Sutter himself posits the reason it sits oddly - he does have amazing, deep characterisation (Tara aside). You WANT to get immersed and I just can't. Still distracted by the strings.I don't want to be sitting there thinking "I wonder how Sutter will keep Clay alive?" but rather "Will Jax actually kill Clay?". And yes, I can see his rationale, but watching that, I didn't feel right there with Jax up against the wall, I just felt tired and annoyed. So yes, maybe changing my expectations will help or maybe it's just never going to be my cup of tea. Despite the awesome soundtrack.

    Great interview by the way :)Write a comment...

    December 8, 2011 at 10:16PM EST Reply to Comment

    • Or Gemma, whos become the queen of plot devices, with her big declaration at the end of "hands", which was by far the best episode of the year and gave me hope for the season, saying how clay would die by the hand of the son, and then, because there were still 3 episodes to go before the finale, going back to her usual secretive lying bullshit, acting like she doesnt want clay dead and doing everything to stop it after just declaring she wants him dead. Why was it ok for her to show jax the letters in the finale but not in ep 11 or 12? Oh, thats right, because were saving that for the finale, wont have enough story going forward otherwise, ugh. Its a shame. Agree with all your points, totally takes me out of the moment, the predictability of it all. I suppose to the mass audience, who he says its his goal to appeal to, its not predictable and cliche, so he's achieving his goal.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:25PM EST

    • In one sense I think Sutter may have too much of the show "planned." When you know that there's goiing to be multiple seasons left because the show is a commercial success it almost becomes a technical exercise in how to maneuver SAMCRO through its pitfalls.

      There are parts of the show that are still organic but those tend to be small character moments that have grown few and far between. The actors hit those moments out of the park when they're given the opportunity (Ryan Hurst among others) but so much of this season was built with very obvious "string pulling."

      Maybe the idea Sutter kept mentioning with Clay being marginalized will play better than it sounds right now but I would have been much more intrigued with him dead or at the very least being protected by the Feds having cut a deal. I'd have been happy with either Opie putting a third bullet in his head or having Jax cut his throat right in the hospital... But that's obviously not how things are going to play out.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:38PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Calen Rotheberg For as much as I don't like Sutter's nature when it comes to criticism, I ultimately have to agree with him. The amount of over-analysis and nitpicking that goes on with any show nowadays on the internet is really just stupid. Unless it's a show of The Wire's caliber (and really nothing much is), it's a fool's errand. One that Sepinwall makes a career of, and kudos to him for that. But it really is silly and shows an entire lack of perspective.

    Not everything is Shakespeare, guys. You're nerds blogging on the internet, or nerds posting comments to said blogs. Chill the crap out, and enjoy your entertainment. Cuz you're sucking the fun out of everything. It gets old. And has.

    When I now watch a tv show and think to myself, "Oh lord, Sepinwall is going to shit a brick over this aspect of the show," that really takes from the experience and enjoyment. Some shows like Breaking Bad or Mad Men deserve critical thinking and deconstruction. But most others most definitely do not.

    Sepinwall, you need to come to grips with your lot in life. You blog for a hacky pop culture site. You're not some deep critic. You can play fancy pants with the shows that warrant it. But the rest? CHILL OUT. I've read you since your old blogspot, and am a big fan. But at the same time have grown oh so tired and annoyed with how you find it necessary to play snooty critic trying to read too much from triviality with every single show you review.

    Guess what, bud?! Most tv shows aren't deep or striving to be as such. You want to act so deep and analytical? Become a foreign film or documentary critic. All you're doing now is playing grown-up AV Club. Being the snarky, overly impressed with himself, kid in the corner laughing at his ability to put others down. It's tired, Alan. I get that it's made you a huge internet star and ever since Twitter gave you more recognition than you previously knew, you buy your own press clippings more than ever.

    It really is sad when you look at it from a tv creator's perspective, or even one of a balanced, non-self-important person. We get it, guy. You're great at poking holes in non-perfection. Congrats. Here's a gold star. Now please, allow us to enjoy our entertainment without feeling the need to all pat our backs at how much smarter we can be than the shows we watch. Because that's all you're doing. And all the back slapping posts in the world you receive, all they do is reinforce that fact. Congrats on helping spread and create a bunch of pompous know it all's who can't think for themselves.

    December 8, 2011 at 10:21PM EST Reply to Comment

    • The problem with this, is up until this season, or even more recent, up until his blog post yesterday, Sutter was trying to create one of these top level shows that deserve deep critical analysis. Hell, he cheered it back in season 2 when Alan praised it. He loved everything about it. Now hes copping out saying hes trying to create some summer blockbuster/pulpy soap opera. Well now that i know that im done taking it seriously and im sure alot of others are as well.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:30PM EST


    • And he whines about not being considered for Emmys and now hes completely changing his tune saying he has no desire to be grouped in with those type of shows. Its weak and obvious

      December 8, 2011 at 10:32PM EST

    • So basically you're problem is that Alan's writing has caused you to think too critically about the entertainment you consume? What a bastard indeed.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:49PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DB Cooper Solution to the "Sepinwall ruins TV for me" problem: Stop reading Sepinwall.

      That, or write 1,000 words bitching about a website nobody forces you to read. Either way.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:11AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      William As far as "not everything's Shakespeare" goes, Sutter won't stop talking about how the show is modeled on Hamlet. So...yeah.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:40AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dezbot Alan was a respected print TV critic before moving over to the WWW. He's not just some "blogger" who got noticed.

      December 9, 2011 at 4:44PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    tag8833 This is the complete oposite of the Veena Sud interview. Veena Sud made me so much angrier about her season finale, while Sutter does alot to salve my feelings, and make me much more positive about his finale.

    December 8, 2011 at 10:27PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      the minister Sutter runs a pretty good show, butt lacks courage of conviction.

      Sud runs a CRAP show and lacks any perspective or humility or willingness to learn.

      Stutter would do 10x better with The Killing than Sud.... and I ain't that big a Sutter fan.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:53PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    eddieisannoy Not killing Juice because he "liked the actor" is so lame. I'm sure Vince Gilligan liked Giancarlo Esposito.

    December 8, 2011 at 11:05PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Matt Z. Jesse was supposed to die in S1, but he lived because Vince Gilligan liked him. Gus was only supposed to be around for 1 or 2 episodes (don't know if he was supposed to die, though), but again, he continued because Vince liked him.

      December 8, 2011 at 11:56PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      moway79 @Matt. Nobody *expected* Jesse to die in S1 as part of his arc, neither for Gus to die/disappear after 1 or 2 episodes (I still don't remember Gilligan mentioning this). It was a smart decision from the creator to keep these characters around longer and develop them more (and it was obvious to a simple viewer that Aaron Paul had great potential to be wasted for one season and arguably Jesse is and has been almost from the get-go a co-protagonist in the show). Thankfully, I can't remember that show building up to their deaths and then backing out at the last moment, hitting a reset button.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:40AM EST

    • And when Kurt said he likes Theo Rossi, i took it as meaning he liked him as a person, liked having him around, and didnt wanna kill him off the show. Gilligan saw the brilliance in Esposito and Paul's performances and how much they enhanced the show and knew no question he had to keep them around. I hope no one is going to reply and make me compare Esposito and Paul to Theo Rossi as actors lol. I just cant do that. He actually had a pretty good season, much better than i thought he was capable, after 3 seasons of being a glorified extra/comic relief that wasnt funny, this was by far the best theyre gonna get out of him and a perfect time to have killed him off, and that scene would of been a great send off.

      December 9, 2011 at 1:46AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kevin You're not allowed to compare this show to Breaking Bad or The Wire or anything that has logical plotting and pays off what it sets up. Kurt says so. It's never going to be that, and he's never going to aspire to that.

      The finale was so bad, I was sort of wishing they'd keep showing us Juice watching The Shield for more than five seconds.

      December 9, 2011 at 6:28AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Mario Kurt needs to decide what this show is.

    If he wants it to be a pulpy soap opera, that's fine. The ratings will come and a bunch of us will bail.

    If he wants to do biting social commentary about "law-enforcement. Everyone this season was usurped by a superior branch...." then take the show seriously. There's a reason the Wire is well received and there's a reason why Days of Our Lives has never tackled the issue of tax reform.

    Pick a show and make that show. But this hodgepodge of approaches resulted in a pretty mediocre season.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:23AM EST Reply to Comment
  • 1
  • 2
Next 122 Comments

News From Our Partners

Alan Sepinwall

About This Blog

All through his childhood, Alan Sepinwall's relatives told his parents, "All that boy does is watch television! How's he going to make a living doing that?" His career as a TV critic has been 15 years and counting of his attempt to answer their concerns. "What's Alan Watching" is a blog whose title is self-explanatory: Alan watches TV shows, then writes about what he watched. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Sign Up ►

HitFix Poll

Which multiple Grammy winner most deserved the accolades?

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
About HitFix

HitFix provides breaking news and insider analysis on what's next in Movies, Music, TV and Local Events. Our localized event calendar lets you personalize and plan your entertainment life, while our instant alerts and mobile apps make sure you never miss out on your favorite entertainment.

Advertise on HitFix
Subscribe to HitFix

Get the latest headlines & updates in your inbox

Popular Topics

© Copyright HitFix.com. All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy