Di anyone else notice Tracy apparently does not have any friends or relatives of her own to be bridesmaids at her own wedding, she needs to use Ted’s.
Up is down, red is blue. Got it. :rolleyes:
I love it. The time honored technique for getting caught being totally wrong with no way out. Claim the other person “misunderstood” the totally unambiguous falsehoods you posted, offer absolutely no clarification about what it is the other person supposedly misunderstood, then claim victory.
At least you didn’t claim you were “being sarcastic”.
I am not “claiming victory”. I am simply pointing out that you misunderstood my original post. You quite literally claimed victory (“I’ve clearly demonstrated that”). I am not quite sure what the basis for that assertion is, since you haven’t offered a scintilla of evidence for anything you claimed. I am quite happy to let people read what’s been posted and make up their own minds.
A lot can happen in seven years. We also don’t know how big the wedding was (Ted implied it was very small and was happening less than a week after the proposal).
Really? You made the original claim, you back it up. You claimed vasectomies were irreversible, you back it up. You claimed vasectomies were difficult to obtain without prior issues, you back it up.
I’ve already shown that a half million Americans per year get vasectomies. If you would like a cite, it’s easy to google, but I’ll provide you with several. Just say the word. I wasn’t aware that you disputed that number. I am also happy to provide cites regarding the number of vasectomy patients who later reverse the procedure, and the success rates. Just say the word.
Now perhaps you could share with us just what it was, exactly, that I am supposed to have misunderstood. Or, you could dodge the question yet again.
In addition, judging from what we saw, Tracy bonded with all of Ted’s friends pretty quickly and thoroughly. It’s not so surprising that at Ted and Tracy’s wedding, the bridal party was composed of people who were friends of both of them.
I think that was just another example of network old fuddy-duddyness.
Hey, you guys arguing about vasectomies - you notice how other people are still trying to discuss the topic of the thread, i.e. the show “How I Met Your Mother”?
Seriously? I already told you: I was referring to men who did not have kids. And as I originally explained, vasectomies are not always reversible, and sperm count and motility never fully recover.
Jesus you two, go get a room in the pit and stop shitting all over this thread.
revised, happier ending from a youtuber. I can even pretend while viewing it that Barney and Robin reconciled. http://www.avclub.com/article/youtube-user-fixed-how-i-met-your-mother-series-fi-202969
and dittos to what Ellis Dee & others have said.
Where did you say that?
Last vasectomy post.
That is actually pretty unclear, now that I look at it (it could easily be read with “in case” only modifying “if you have a change of heart”), so I apologize if you were confused by that.
Okay. Gotcha.
I thought it was a decent finale. It seems like so many shows go wrong with finales so I guess I have low expectations.
One thing I would have like to see addressed just a little bit more would be Lily’s career. This whole last season had a lot about Lily and Marshall deciding to go to Rome or not and and their careers. It’s come up repeatedly in the series about her ambitions. They mention about Marshall being a judge and then New York Supreme Court, but they only mention Lily being pregnant again. It would have been nice if they had at least mentioned something about Lily still working for the captain, or that she opened an art gallery, or something.
That’s what I thought. Young Robin and Young Ted wouldn’t have worked together for the long term, they’d have ended up divorced. Robin and Ted in 2030 might now be right for each other.
But also Robin and Barney in 2030 might now be right for each other. Barney evidently matured after he had a daughter, and Robin’s career doesn’t seem to have her traveling as often.
Oh that’s true. I wonder how that would have worked. It seems like that really would have caused emotional whiplash, to see this cute girl that will end up being the mother and then cut to Old Ted, then to his kids saying “we know she’s dead now and that you want to date Aunt Robin, go for it!” I can’t imagine how that would have worked.
I think just getting a brief flash of the mother (maybe even seeing that first scene under the umbrella without the dialogue – or with voiceover dialogue from Old Ted) and then being told that she was dead would have worked really well. It would have given more punch to the daughter’s comment that the story barely involved the mother, and eliminated the conflict between people who wanted to see Ted end up with Robin and those who wanted to see him with the mother. As soon as people began speculating that the mother was dead, I realized that this was the original intent of the story, that the mother was just the MacGuffin. The extra season really messed with the concept, even though Cristin Milioti did a really nice job bringing the mother to life – the problem was that the mother was never supposed to be brought to life at all.
How is it an excellent point? Ted is not a real person. Neither are the children. Nothing at all can be cruel to a fictitious entity. The audience are real people. They are the ones evaluating the episodes. The entire point of my post was explaining why some people found the ending dissatisfying.
Fiction is not evaluated by how close it matches real life. It is evaluated on how well it connects with its audience. A vast portion of the audience felt very disconnected with the finale, and some people think it’s because the mother’s death did not have narrative closure. They think we needed to see Ted grow from her death, something we couldn’t see because they spent no time on it. We had to go in five minutes from mourning her being thrown under the bus (meaning killed offscreen) with some sort of Victorian wasting disease (unidentified disease with no real symptoms) to agreeing with the kids that Ted needed to move on.
The fact that it was frustrating or dissatisfying to (some of) the audience is a flaw. It undermines what the episode is trying to do, giving the proper ending to the main story arc. These people find themselves disconnected from Ted, unable to buy that he both really loved the mother and that things would work out with Robin. Yet that’s exactly what the episode was trying to get them to believe.
Whether Ted and his children would already know about the mother’s death has no relevance to whether it should have been shown onscreen.
Bah, sorry if that came off as me being particularly upset. I just don’t get these types of arguments. I guess I could see them as a secondary view, but not one that makes the original ideas “bullpucky.” And I don’t see how you can think frustrating your audience is a good thing.
This episode could have had it all, but they chose to cram it all together. They may have technically covered all the required narrative points, but they left a lot of people dissatisfied. They were already having to do things people wouldn’t like: breaking up Barney and Robin after taking three years to get people to support them, putting Ted back with Robin after spending years convincing the viewers that it would never work, and killing off the mother after people had started liking her. They needed to focus heavily on softening the blow from all of these.
On paper, the episode sounds good, like it brings closure to the series. But, when some people watch it, they feel like it was executed poorly. That some people had to come here and read about what they were trying to do is not a good thing. It should all be on the screen: a work of fiction should stand alone.
Really Not All That Bright, Labrador Deceiver – drop it or take it to the Pit, one or the other. You’re off-topic in this thread.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator
this is one of those times when I wish posts here had “like” buttons because I like BigT 's post just now, a lot.