When I'm Right and Everyone Else Is Wrong: A Discussion About the Show "Pluribus"

I've read a lot of articles lately about how good the Apple+ show "Pluribus" is supposed to be. Not only are there articles about the show itself, prominent entertainment websites publish discussion pieces after each episode. Plus, I've read lists of the top shows of the year, with "Pluribus" always near the tops, as well as articles about awards shows like the Golden Globes not showing enough love to the show, which many critics consider to be a masterpiece. It has even received several call-outs on the Cinema Sangha podcasts (the only podcasts I listen to).

I figured I had to check it out.

For those who don't know, "Pluribus" is a modern-day science fiction show where due to complicated circumstances, almost all people on Earth suddenly form a hive-mind in a pod people-type thing. There are only 11 people left on the world (as of the third episode) who remain themselves, and the hive-mind folks have committed to serving their every need...until they can also be assimilated.

The show was created by Vince Gilligan. Hearing that he had created a sci fi TV show was enough to convince me to watch it, as I loved his work on "The X-Files". I mean, he's the one who wrote the incredible "Drive" episode in the sixth season, which is also where he first met Bryan Cranston (for more on where that relationship went...read on).

So we've got an incredible writer coming up with an intriguing premise. But how do you filter that into a TV show? Gilligan's idea: Show it from the perspective of one of the most cynical, frustrated, and down-right mean people in the world, who happens to be one of the 11 remaining un-assimilated.

If you think about it, that would make for a great episode of "The Twilight Zome"!

Unfortunately, after three episodes I'm almost two and a half hours in with hours to go.

Let me just interject that I fully intend to watch the whole series - I think the premise is fascinating enough that I really want to see where it goes - I have no problem with the overall theme.

What I have a problem with is following a main character that is a truly reprehensible person with no redeeming qualities.

The main character, Carol, played by Carol Sturka (more on her later too), is a fantasy romance fiction novelist who hates her life, hates what she does, hates everything in general, pouts all the time, etc. Considering she just lived through an apocalypse, which included her wife dying in her arms, it would be understandable if the events of the premise changed her. However, as we see in the lead-up to the event, as well as in flashbacks, she NEVER had redeeming qualities - she was always a downer and always focusing on the worst side of things. It's like taking a trip to Disneyland with Morrissey.

So you have a fascinating plot, but shown through the lens of a character that I cannot stand. So why is my opinion so different than the opinions of a pantheon of entertainment types?

I have a theory.

They're all brainwashed.

Let me explain.

As mentioned above, Vince Gilligan met Bryan Cranston on the set of the "X-Files" episode "Drive". They later connected on one of the all-time great TV shows, "Breaking Bad". Since viewers, entertainment types, and Bob Odenkirk (much respect) were clamoring for more after "Breaking Bad" ended, Gilligan created the spin-off "Better Call Saul", which many have said was as good or better than "Breaking Bad", and which also starred Carol Sturka.

As has been discussed many times on various Cinema Sangha podcasts, when you cast someone in a show or movie, you are casting all the equity that person has built up - while they are playing one particular character, if someone is recognizable as another character from somewhere else, they are going to be bringing all of those traits along with them (Side note: I remember once watching an early-nineties train-related murder mystery movie on HBO some Friday decades ago, and Danny Glover played the murderer, but it was an absolute shock that he was the bad guy, even though in retrospect the movie was saying the whole time DANNY GLOVER IS THE MURDERED in all caps, just because he was playing off the good-guy equity he had established in the Lethal Weapon franchise.)

So when Carol Sturka plays Carol, who are the entertainment writers seeing? I think they're seeing Carol's character from "Better Call Saul", supposedly one of the best TV shows in the last decade. It's almost certain that everyone writing about TV has to have seen "Breaking Bad"/"Better Call Saul" to write about today's best shows, and I think when they see Carol Sturka on "Pluribus" there is enough equity carrying over from her former character that they unwittingly see her new character as more of an extension.

I have never seen "Better Call Saul", or, for that matter, "Breaking Bad". For the same reason I never saw "Lost" or "The Sopranos" - once enough people reach that "OMG you HAVE to watch this" level I instinctively turn on it (I'm just punk rock like that). So when I watch "Pluribus" I don't see Carol Sturka, I see Carol the character, who, as I said, is an absolute pain to watch and totally drags down the show.

One note on the above - I don't blame Carol Sturka for that - I think she's acting the character out exactly. I blame the writing for the character, so ultimately this is Vince Gilligan's fault.

So, just to see where this story goes, I'm going to keep watching. But if I still feel unsatisfied by the end of the season, Vince Gilligan owes me money.