• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mad Men - Season 6 - Sundays on AMC

Status
Not open for further replies.

hamchan

Member
I understand that much.

It seemed though that Don recognized him from a previous history which I can't remember.

He's from episode 6 from this season, the episode where Don and Ted decided to merge. He was the one at the airport, mocking Roger and Don for losing Vicks.
 

Fjordson

Member
Just finished the finale. Great ending to a great season.

Even though I root for Don, I was sort of glad to see the other partners take a stand against his bullshit. If only because it's an interesting turn for the show. I mean they said it's just time off, but I assume he's done there, right? What with Duck and that other guy showing right as he was leaving.

I felt bad for Megan. I know some people don't really like her, but I love the character and think Jessica Paré is great in the role. Really hoping that wasn't the end of her and Don. Maybe he'll just say fuck it and take her to California anyway since the New York firm isn't holding him back anymore.

And wow @ Bob Benson. Dude doesn't play man. Him with the apron and knife carving the turkey was hilarious to me for some reason. Can't wait to see how the firm goes along with him, Peggy, and the rest of them in Don's absence.
 

CassSept

Member
2. Hmm. Good question. It's a character drama. Maybe give some Season 2 episodes a taste, but you've pretty much seen how it goes down. It's all about relationships, office politics, and personal growth and destruction.

I think it gets best from season 3 onwards. This is the point where the show gets comfortable with the setting and starts getting way more daring, riveting and interesting. It makes sense too, because an episode like "A Guy Walks Into Advertising Agency" would had felt weird and out of place at earlier point, but it's such a great moment right where it's placed. The show needs some time to get used to it, but when it moves past that accommodation period it gets amazing.
 
- Tom & Lorenzo: Mad Style: In Care Of
Mdp7BGP.jpg


t should be noted that these are grownup clothes, for the most part. This is not youthful like something a 20-year-old would wear. In fact, it looks more like a costume from Sweet Charity. It’s sexy, of course; and more youthful than anything, say, Joan would wear. But compare this to Megan’s mini-dresses of the past season. She and Peggy are about the same age, but Megan stepped right off a magazine cover in the trendiest clothes imaginable. The Zou Bisou dress, which is somewhat similar to this, was something Megan wore over two years ago.

Peggy wore this on a date with some guy who worked in finance, which should give you some idea of where a dress like this falls on the youth/trend scale. Picture what a 30-year-old female executive would wear today on a date to look sexy.

Harry is wearing an SC&P company tie. Jim is in establishment red, white and blue – a surprise, given his penchant for pale, ghostly looks. And Ted is wearing blue and green, which is another color combination motif this season; one very persistently applied to people cheating or people dealing with the fallout of cheating. Again, if you’re new to Mad Style, we encourage you to look through the previous entries for dozens of examples.
 

Dany

Banned
When do you think the final season will pick up in 1969? I wonder if we will see the 70s.

What major events occur in 1969?
 

PolishQ

Member
When do you think the final season will pick up in 1969? I wonder if we will see the 70s.

What major events occur in 1969?

A timeskip to 1972-74 would be interesting, to see Watergate and Nixon's downfall. Would make for an interesting full circle considering season one had the agency backing Nixon's presidential campaign.
 

Jackben

bitch I'm taking calls.
It's going to be '69 because the moon landing will feature on the final season, I'm all but cetain of it.
 

Kraftwerk

Member
Yeah, I don't think it wil be after 69. I feel like that is how the show is going to end; just before 1970. Just before the "death of the suit" or whatever you want to call it.
 
Fantastic season finale. It really feels like they are trying to set up season 7 as Don's redemption. This was as low as he could sink. Megan's left him (?), his daughter hates him, fired from the job he loved, embarrassed himself infront of a major clinet and realized he is an alcoholic.

But what was surprising was the last scene of the finale didnt really exude that feeling. Don seems almost optimistic or upbeat. Maybe he realizes its rock bottom too and the only way is up?
 
Nice, but I still don't like the assertion that Mad Men has "race problems." Black issues are highlighted as much as the setting makes appropriate.

Yeah, we could have more of Dawn, but we could also have more of Ginsberg, too. Minorities are more marginalized in the 60s.

Obtuse people will never get it, and by this point, it's a lost cause trying to make them understand.
 
Rosenberg's article ends on a plot thread I'd totally forgotten was left somewhat dangling. The Sandy thing didn't really lead to any of the things I thought it'd lead to. It pretty much stopped dead at Betty dying her hair.
 

pigeon

Banned
Nice, but I still don't like the assertion that Mad Men has "race problems." Black issues are highlighted as much as the setting makes appropriate.

Yeah, we could have more of Dawn, but we could also have more of Ginsberg, too. Minorities are more marginalized in the 60s.

I honestly don't agree. This same argument could have been used to defend a Mad Men in which Peggy and Joan are minor characters because men are dominant figures throughout the 60s. But obviously that would have been a much worse show! I like Mad Men for what it is, and I think it's one of the strongest feminist shows basically ever. That's one reason I find it disappointing that Weiner hasn't really made much of an attempt to bring out and focus on African-American and other minorities. I find it especially frustrating because it's the civil rights era!
 

f0rk

Member
I honestly don't agree. This same argument could have been used to defend a Mad Men in which Peggy and Joan are minor characters because men are dominant figures throughout the 60s. But obviously that would have been a much worse show! I like Mad Men for what it is, and I think it's one of the strongest feminist shows basically ever. That's one reason I find it disappointing that Weiner hasn't really made much of an attempt to bring out and focus on African-American and other minorities. I find it especially frustrating because it's the civil rights era!

I think it would be in danger of feeling forced
 
I am sure it would be forced.

Having two strong business people who are female is not out of line, especially when one of them literally slept their way to the top. A black businessperson would be odd.

It's the civil rights era, and there's been some focus on that, but I don't think a relative lack given the setting is at all unusal. If the show were about something less segregated and white-dominated, sure, but the show is about an advertising firm. The show isn't meant to be an all-encompasing look at the 60s. Heck, there's barely any counter-culture at all, and it's chief representitive got stabbed and sent packing. It's a narrow slice.
 
I honestly don't agree. This same argument could have been used to defend a Mad Men in which Peggy and Joan are minor characters because men are dominant figures throughout the 60s. But obviously that would have been a much worse show! I like Mad Men for what it is, and I think it's one of the strongest feminist shows basically ever. That's one reason I find it disappointing that Weiner hasn't really made much of an attempt to bring out and focus on African-American and other minorities. I find it especially frustrating because it's the civil rights era!

I think it's safe to say that white women started making inroads in the business world before African-Americans did.

To depict a black employee rising to the top of an ad agency in the midst of the Civil Rights movement is borderline fantasy.
 

pigeon

Banned
I am sure it would be forced.

Having two strong business people who are female is not out of line, especially when one of them literally slept their way to the top. A black businessperson would be odd.

It's the civil rights era, and there's been some focus on that, but I don't think a relative lack given the setting is at all unusal. If the show were about something less segregated and white-dominated, sure, but the show is about an advertising firm. The show isn't meant to be an all-encompasing look at the 60s. Heck, there's barely any counter-culture at all, and it's chief representitive got stabbed and sent packing. It's a narrow slice.

I think it's safe to say that white women started making inroads in the business world before African-Americans did.

To depict a black employee rising to the top of an ad agency in the midst of the Civil Rights movement is a borderline fantasy.

You guys are making some weird assumptions about what I was looking for! I don't expect to see successful minorities in a 60's advertising agency. I would be happy to see them be present, visible characters, that struggle against the society around them. Less Peggy, more Betty. I was excited to have Dawn on the show, but she's basically only had one episode a season.

I think arguments about the "slice" of Mad Men are basically apologetics. Again, I think the same arguments would be equally popular if Mad Men had been mostly about men and none of the women rose above minor secretarial parts. The fact that there are at least a few episodes about Dawn should be evidence that it's not fundamentally alien to the world they're dealing with. Indeed, I'm sure if they had 22 episodes a year we'd see more of them. But the fact that the tightness of the script cuts out minority characters is basically my point, and the source of my disappointment.
 

pigeon

Banned
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to see more of them (with an expanded show), just that saying it has "race problems" isn't correct.

You're probably right that "race problems" is unduly harsh. I would probably say I wish it did race a little better. That doesn't mean it has PROBLEMS per se.
 

CassSept

Member
I think they'll skip 1969, personally. Almost too much happens that year for it to be a good one to do.

That's impossible. 1969 has to be, it was expected from the start to be the end point of the series, they can't just leave it out. I mean, hell. You expect Mad Men to skip over moon landing? No no, just no.

I know this calls for a short time skip between seasons, but 2->3 was less than half a year too I believe.
 

maharg

idspispopd
That's impossible. 1969 has to be, it was expected from the start to be the end point of the series, they can't just leave it out. I mean, hell. You expect Mad Men to skip over moon landing? No no, just no.

I know this calls for a short time skip between seasons, but 2->3 was less than half a year too I believe.

Yep, I do expect Mad Men to skip the moon landing. And Woodstock.

But then I subscribe to the idea that Mad Men is about the end of the (or a) world, and those two events are more hopeful than apocalyptic.

Also I think reducing Mad Men to being nothing more than a 60s travelogue is kind of cruel. Mad Men doesn't *have* to include any particular event because it's actually a pretty damn good story regardless of when it was set.
 

Jackben

bitch I'm taking calls.
Except I think Weiner said it was just a leave of absence?
Think of it this way: Freddy Rumsen was also put on a leave of absence with no return date.

I also agree with chaoticprout; it'd likely be an outright subtle firing like Rumsen if Don wasn't a partner. As he has a large stake in the company still due to his share and status as a partner, they won't be able to outright remove him from the company altogether. Thus they did the next best thing, forcing him to take an indefinite leave of absence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom