HBO's "The Night Of" (Season 1)

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by the one who knocks

Is it absurd that those 2 seconds at end bumped this show from an 8/10 to a 9/10 for me?

[blurayfriend]

I found it too unbelievable the young female attorney would find Naz remotely attractive... let alone hide you-know-what you-know-where for him.

[Karmasux96]

I'm very surprised to see people thought this show dipped in quality. For me it was incredibly strong throughout, and the only reason I was more intrigued by Ep 1 was because I was watching like a hawk to take in all of the details. Otherwise, I thought later episodes were stronger and more well-rounded (Ep 6 was the only ep that I thought felt relatively weak - though still good). I thought the series was an incredibly interesting portrayal of the justice system with some nice real-world implications. Much like the first season of True Detective, it stuck nicely in a gray area. Unlike True Detective, though, there was no doubt on the type of show The Night Of was going to be. It built everything entirely on its own merits without hype built around wild speculation of supernatural elements at play - so I really appreciated that.

Acting was solid all around. Riz Ahmed was incredible, the way he was able to evolve with Naz in body language and the way he talked. He sold the uncertainty angle throughout the series. Turturro was unsurprisingly great. Bill Camp was also fantastic.

With the small amount of time they gave themselves to conclude I felt everything was appropriate and well handled and I ultimately loved the finale.

[Show spoiler]The "open" ending fit the rest of the show, and I appreciate they didn't feel the need to tie up the case in a tight bow. 1) It doesn't work like that in real life, 2) that ending would have felt very Law and Order.

As for Chandra, I agree the kiss was out of place, but her sneaking in drugs wasn't out of left field. She's immediately introduced as someone who's fairly easily manipulated and doesn't consider the greater picture of her actions (ex: her boss using Chandra's cultural background to appeal to Naz's family. When Stone calls her out on it she seems surprised as if she hadn't really considered why she was chosen for the job.).

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Karmasux96

I'm very surprised to see people thought this show dipped in quality. For me it was incredibly strong throughout, and the only reason I was more intrigued by Ep 1 was because I was watching like a hawk to take in all of the details. Otherwise, I thought later episodes were stronger and more well-rounded (Ep 6 was the only ep that I thought felt relatively weak - though still good). I thought the series was an incredibly interesting portrayal of the justice system with some nice real-world implications. Much like the first season of True Detective, it stuck nicely in a gray area. Unlike True Detective, though, there was no doubt on the type of show The Night Of was going to be. It built everything entirely on its own merits without hype built around wild speculation of supernatural elements at play - so I really appreciated that.

Acting was solid all around. Riz Ahmed was incredible, the way he was able to evolve with Naz in body language and the way he talked. He sold the uncertainty angle throughout the series. Turturro was unsurprisingly great. Bill Camp was also fantastic.

With the small amount of time they gave themselves to conclude I felt everything was appropriate and well handled and I ultimately loved the finale.

[Show spoiler]The "open" ending fit the rest of the show, and I appreciate they didn't feel the need to tie up the case in a tight bow. 1) It doesn't work like that in real life, 2) that ending would have felt very Law and Order.

As for Chandra, I agree the kiss was out of place, but her sneaking in drugs wasn't out of left field. She's immediately introduced as someone who's fairly easily manipulated and doesn't consider the greater picture of her actions (ex: her boss using Chandra's cultural background to appeal to Naz's family. When Stone calls her out on it she seems surprised as if she hadn't really considered why she was chosen for the job.).

Have to disagree with this.

I can't imagine a scenario where even the most wet-behind-the-ears, first-year associate would be willing to smuggle drugs into a holding cell so that her client could get high before testifying in a murder trial.

Forget disbarment...she's committing a felony.

[Karmasux96]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Have to disagree with this.

I can't imagine a scenario where even the most wet-behind-the-ears, first-year associate would be willing to smuggle drugs into a holding cell so that her client could get high before testifying in a murder trial.

Forget disbarment...she's committing a felony.

I'm not saying it's a smart character choice or even great writing, but they did make an effort to setup something like that. She had a history throughout the show of making poor decisions that allowed her to be manipulated, put her life in danger, or put her career in danger.

She's personally attached from both a cultural and romantic standpoint, explaining why she's willing to go that extra mile. She was desperate to get Naz in front of the jury, fearing that the lack of a testimony would seal his fate. Going through withdrawal he was no good to her. This was an organic - yet asinine - option, and Naz sensed her weakness and gave her an ultimatum. The moment was supposed to reveal more about him than her, I think.

[Hucksta G]

Had a binge watch of this, one of the best shows I've seen in a long time.

[IroquoisPliskin]

first 30 mins, its good but the main guy is so ****ing stupid, it's pissing me off. jesus christ he doesnt know how to think. ****ing dumbass!

[Ray Jackson]

Would you rather be dead than be someone's b*tch in prison or would you rather be someone's b*tch and live?

...that's the real question that guys like us have to ask ourselves while watching a show like this.

[IroquoisPliskin]

holly **** i cant stand the main character, he's extremely stupid. absolutely no common sense or awareness and he's weak.

[Mobe1969]

Sorry I'm late to the party but I am just watching it.

I didn't find Nazir's actions unbelievable, just stupid. I just found the story and writing unbelievable. Namely the fact that no one took note that there was no blood all over him looking at all the blood and brutality of the murder.

Not to mention the fact the idiot was driving around ALL NIGHT in a cab driven by three co-owners and none of them were operating the cab at party time Friday Night, and no one noticed until Saturday morning? Just xxxxing ludicrous writing. I have writers that are so stupid. I turn off my brain watching entertainment, but some basic stuff is so offensive it riles me. Just weak. Lazy. They have to put in unnecessary stuff in their weak writing to pad an episode (eg including an unnecessary scene with the three cab drivers), but are too high on their own supply to realise it doesn't make sense and detracts from their core plot.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

Sorry I'm late to the party but I am just watching it.

I didn't find Nazir's actions unbelievable, just stupid. I just found the story and writing unbelievable. Namely the fact that no one took note that there was no blood all over him looking at all the blood and brutality of the murder.

Not to mention the fact the idiot was driving around ALL NIGHT in a cab driven by three co-owners and none of them were operating the cab at party time Friday Night, and no one noticed until Saturday morning? Just xxxxing ludicrous writing. I have writers that are so stupid. I turn off my brain watching entertainment, but some basic stuff is so offensive it riles me. Just weak. Lazy. They have to put in unnecessary stuff in their weak writing to pad an episode (eg including an unnecessary scene with the three cab drivers), but are too high on their own supply to realise it doesn't make sense and detracts from their core plot.

Of all the things to suspend disbelief, the cab availability is far down the list. Everything else that happened that night is so much more unbelievable, but that's the fun of it. Virtually every person that Naz ran into presented a huge threat and seemed to have motive, history and opportunity of committing violent crime.

[Mobe1969]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Of all the things to suspend disbelief, the cab availability is far down the list. Everything else that happened that night is so much more unbelievable, but that's the fun of it. Virtually every person that Naz ran into presented a huge threat and seemed to have motive, history and opportunity of committing violent crime.

In my opinion it is the so egregious as it added nothing to the entire story and detracted from it. It wasn't something illogical and stupid like the lack of blood evidence being even raised being just rubbish writing but 100% necessary to actually have a half baked excuse for this stupid "story". See all the other stupidity was sort of necessary to have even a basic rubbish plot. The fact he was in a 3 driver cab unknown to all 3 drivers in New York on Friday night was just stupid unnecessary backstory not even vaguely necessary to progress the poorly written plot. They could have had him driving his own car and it would not have made any difference to the plot other than not making it even more rubbish. Hello, they could have even upped the ante by having him as some shxxhead driving a stolen car and it would have added more.

[Naiera]

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Mobe1969

In my opinion it is the so egregious as it added nothing to the entire story and detracted from it. It wasn't something illogical and stupid like the lack of blood evidence being even raised being just rubbish writing but 100% necessary to actually have a half baked excuse for this stupid "story". See all the other stupidity was sort of necessary to have even a basic rubbish plot. The fact he was in a 3 driver cab unknown to all 3 drivers in New York on Friday night was just stupid unnecessary backstory not even vaguely necessary to progress the poorly written plot. They could have had him driving his own car and it would not have made any difference to the plot other than not making it even more rubbish. Hello, they could have even upped the ante by having him as some shxxhead driving a stolen car and it would have added more.

It wasn't a big part of the story. You're making something of nothing and your so-called solutions have severe problems. There are plausible explanations about the cab availability to Nas that night but it is not important to the story. If you take away the cab and have Nas driving his own car (despite coming from a dirt-poor family) or driving a stolen car (despite being a supposedly law abiding person), it creates more problems for the plot. Why. Because the only reason the girl felt ok about getting in Nas' car is because it's a cab. If you eliminate that explanation, it creates so many problems to unravel in this kind of show that it's untenable. Is that really what you're wanting? Maybe you should write your own script and pitch it to HBO. Good luck.

[crude]

I tought someone thumbed this up to say that the season 2 is coming but i remember this is a one time deal.

I kind of liked the show but it could have been better. The woman in the first episode was dope

[surfdude12]

For me, the main problem with the show is that the biggest strength (Turturro's character) is sidelined for about half of the show (#1 point that makes no sense). And not just that but the excuse for sidelining him - he gets replaced by a law firm who ends up backing out, but at the same time not backing out cause they leave an associate on the case (#2 point that makes no sense), where the associate out of nowhere kisses him (#3 point makes no sense).
But in fact, the writers only had her kiss him so that she would be taken off the case and that Turturro would come back onto the case, thus the writers were just undoing the mistake they made by taking Turturro off the case to begin with. If they hadn't taken Turturro off the case, they wouldn't have to come up with silly reasons for putting him back on. This show was like watching the New England Patriots pulling Brady in the first quarter, losing by 25 before they decide to put Brady back in in the 4th quarter

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

For me, the main problem with the show is that the biggest strength (Turturro's character) is sidelined for about half of the show (#1 point that makes no sense). And not just that but the excuse for sidelining him - he gets replaced by a law firm who ends up backing out, but at the same time not backing out cause they leave an associate on the case (#2 point that makes no sense), where the associate out of nowhere kisses him (#3 point makes no sense).
But in fact, the writers only had her kiss him so that she would be taken off the case and that Turturro would come back onto the case, thus the writers were just undoing the mistake they made by taking Turturro off the case to begin with. If they hadn't taken Turturro off the case, they wouldn't have to come up with silly reasons for putting him back on. This show was like watching the New England Patriots pulling Brady in the first quarter, losing by 25 before they decide to put Brady back in in the 4th quarter

Turturro had plenty of opportunity to shine throughout the series. His character was the only one working the case and the defense strategy the entire time. In that sense, he was never really off the case. The reason the more experienced attorney didn't work out and the reason Nas kissed the associate was because he had serious issues with females, starting with his mother, and he trusted that Turturro would adopt the stance that he was innocent like no one else, as symbolized by adopting the cat.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Turturro had plenty of opportunity to shine throughout the series. His character was the only one working the case and the defense strategy the entire time. In that sense, he was never really off the case.

Its not that's he's "off" the case, its that you've demoted him to a supporting role, which you never do with your strongest character. I'm not buying it.

The reason the more experienced attorney didn't work out and the reason Nas kissed the associate was because he had serious issues with females, starting with his mother, and he trusted that Turturro would adopt the stance that he was innocent like no one else, as symbolized by adopting the cat.

Ok, let's assume that's all true. It still doesn't explain the idiotic script writing since they could have achieved that without tossing their strongest character in a supporting role. They could have easily had the female associate be a sidekick of Turturro or some other female in the show. The point is you don't toss your strongest character back into a supporting role to achieve something you can do while keeping him up front. Its like bulldozing your house to fix your windows = overkill.

[Shingster]

You do realise this is a remake, don't you surfdude? The reason Turtorro's role changed that way was because they were adapting a pre-existing story and in the original story the equivalent of Turtorro's role was considerably smaller still. All the plotpoints you complain about were major plotpoints in the original source material.

[harryq]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Its not that's he's "off" the case, its that you've demoted him to a supporting role, which you never do with your strongest character. I'm not buying it.



Ok, let's assume that's all true. It still doesn't explain the idiotic script writing since they could have achieved that without tossing their strongest character in a supporting role. They could have easily had the female associate be a sidekick of Turturro or some other female in the show. The point is you don't toss your strongest character back into a supporting role to achieve something you can do while keeping him up front. Its like bulldozing your house to fix your windows = overkill.

I agree, but I feel like you aren't going far enough:

• Turturro should have been from a major law firm -- he's the biggest name actor on the show, so we should make his character equally important.
• Naz should be guilty -- any loser can get a mistrial, but John Tururro can get a murderer free!
• Speaking of which, the trial shouldn't have ended in a mistrial -- it should have been an *innocent* verdict (not "not guilty", but straight up "innocent").
• Furthermore, why did this show need to be 8 episodes? Episode 1: Naz kills the girl. Episode 2: Turturro wins the case. Episode 3: Turturro receives an Emmy.