Jump to content

All Episodes Talk: That Can't Be Right

A place to discuss particular episodes, arcs and moments from the show's run. Please remember this isn't a complete catch-all topic -- check out the forum for character topics and other places for show-related talk.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I've watched every episode, but last night's: Adam Ruins Death has to be my favorite hands down. It was informative and deeply thought provoking, and the humor was more subdued. The subject matter kind of insists upon that, I suppose.

I really liked learning about natural burial, and how important it is to make sure your needs/wants are known so that your loved ones don't have to make decisions under duress. That was the worst part of losing my mother this year, making those choices blindly.

3

Share Post


Link to post

OMG! NOOOOOO! Please tell me that's not the last episode of the season! it can't end like that!

0

Share Post


Link to post

I haven't watched the funeral ep yet, but I know about that business already. I caught the election ep and disagree with some of the points. There is a obvious and logical reason Washington D.C. and American territories cannot vote. The former is to prevent our capital from voting themselves stuff and the territories aren't full-fledged states.

1

Share Post


Link to post

New episodes of “Adam Ruins Everything” will premiere on truTV on Tuesday, Aug. 23, at 10 p.m.

0

Share Post


Link to post

Although the football episode was depressing (except for the callback to Adam's appreciation for public transport), this is one of the most watchable, well-researched shows on television.  

2

Share Post


Link to post

Did anyone catch the name of the author of the book about marriage?

Also, has anyone found a site with footnotes for each episode?

0

Share Post


Link to post

Thanks for the link. I did a similar search and missed that result, which makes me seriously worry about my mental competence!

1

Share Post


Link to post

Any time! :-) and I know from the Jeopardy threads that your mental competence is nothing to worry about! ;-D

0

Share Post


Link to post

The idea that cats are responsible for bird decline is very controversial and not nearly as simple as the show makes it seem.

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/04/the-silence-of-the-songbirds/

http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p048kk1j?ns_mchannel=social&

I used to have a really good article that strongly debunked the cat predation numbers and impact-- put out by a bird organization, not a cat advocacy group-- but I can't find it right now. I think I lost it in a previous computer's meltdown.

Not saying there is no impact of cats or that people shouldn't do things to help birds, but the tendency to demonize cats throughout history, and the relative ease of blaming cats instead of the more significant causes of bird decline, is not helping the bird population and is kind of a lazy approach.

5

Share Post


Link to post

I appreciated the burial episode.  I didn't know you weren't required to embalm people to bury them until my dad died earlier this year. I know now we made the right decision to just say no.  

1

Share Post


Link to post

That immigration episode was terrific. I haven't learned that much since the transportation episode.

5

Share Post


Link to post

The animal episode:

Oh, Adam.  Standing in that pet store, you snuck right up to the edge and peeked over, but you just couldn't spit out the word 'puppymill' to complete the circuit, could you?   I thought "pull back the curtain," "follow the money" and "expose the truth" were all supposed to be your thing.  But a thousand thanks, sincerely, for directing dog shoppers to shelters.

 

A little weird to slam the people involved with the feral cat colonies, since their main objective is reducing the feral cat population through spay/neuter sterilization.

 

The segment on commercial big game hunting was extremely informative.  I'm never going to get over my loathing for that asshole Trump kid, mugging at the camera as he swings his freshly killed sawed-off elephant tail around, but I did gain some comprehension I didn't have before and a change in perspective.  Mission accomplished, show.

Edited by candall.
1

Share Post


Link to post

The show sometimes makes choices I don't understand. There were problems with the forensics episode, too (he completely glossed over the problems with DNA evidence).

I've liked that they are trying to change up the format a little in the past couple of episodes (immigration and housing). Having the "guest host" for the immigration episode was particularly smart.

Also, Rhea as his sister-- I love her other show ("Take My Wife") so I was imagining a crossover with this show and actually I think it would work fairly seamlessly. The tones are close enough, even though the subject matter is completely different.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I binge watched a few episodes last weekend and I love the one he did on cars.  It's true that cities were built, not for people, but for cars.  In NYC, cars ruined The Bronx and because Robert Moses thought it was a good idea to build a highway right in the middle of neighborhoods, destroying numbers of local businesses.  It's true, cars are great for long trips, but they should not be the only way to travel; besides there are some people who really should NOT be driving.

Edited by Neurochick.
2

Share Post


Link to post

I don't really know what the election special was trying to accomplish. I know Adam said his biggest disappointment was the election episode because he heard from people that it actually made them not want to vote, but it felt like he was trying to tell us here that we should be okay with the status quo because that's how it always is and that it works...?

Or basically not vote for Trump? 

0

Share Post


Link to post

I thought he was just doing what he always does, which is to refute what he sees as untruths that are floating around. Why would it make someone not want to vote? What would not voting accomplish?

0

Share Post


Link to post

I really enjoy the little Ever Wonder Why? clips. Why the heck were Q-Tips called Baby Gays?

Though I assumed Adam's "every wonder why cheese is put on everything?" was a rhetorical question. Um, because it's fucking delicious? And is there seriously a cave full of cheese? Because if so, I Want To Go To There.

2

Share Post


Link to post

I really like the Emily character and how they are writing her friendship with Adam. Neither one is secretly pining for the other, and she accepts and includes him even though he can irritate her. It's a simple thing, but always nice to see a show acknowledge friendship between the opposite sex without sexual tension.

2

Share Post


Link to post
On 11/24/2016 at 2:53 AM, Dewey Decimate said:

Though I assumed Adam's "every wonder why cheese is put on everything?" was a rhetorical question. Um, because it's fucking delicious? And is there seriously a cave full of cheese? Because if so, I Want To Go To There.

I thought he was going to say we put cheese on everything because we're fat ass Americans!  AMEN!  Now where's that cave?

1

Share Post


Link to post

From the Xmas special:

"In England, drunken mobs would take over the streets, bang on rich peoples doors and demand food or money, or they would not leave them in peace".

 

We wish you a Merry Christmas / We wish you a Merry Christmas / We wish you a Merry Christmas / and a Happy New Year

Now bring us some figgy pudding / Now Bring Us Some Figgy Pudding / NOW BRING US SOME FIGGY PUDDING / AND A CUP OF "GOOD CHEER"

And we won't go until we get some / We Won't Go Until We Get Some / WE WON"T GO UNTIL WE GET SOME / SO BRING SOME OUT HERE!!!!

(Seriously, where did you think we got that from)?????

.......... a popular English Christmas carol from the West Country of England.

...........    an envoie much used by wassailers and other luck visitors

1

Share Post


Link to post

I enjoyed the xmas show, despite my lack of interest in xmas. I thought the "tree of knowledge" was great.

I also appreciated the exposure of the imbalance in defense and prosecution resources in the previous episode, though I thought it didn't go nearly far enough. Giving the client a win and portraying the good intentions of the public defender as enough to overcome the discrepancy in resources struck me as a total whitewash. The show doesn't usually pull punches like that, so why did they do it this time?

The formula of Adam's friends and family being angry with him and righteously kicking his ass is wearing thin for me, along with him being momentarily sad and then bouncing back to his habitual behavior in 2 seconds. I don't like him being a smug asshole, either, though. I hope the show can find a balance of some kind, or some other framing device altogether.

0

Share Post


Link to post

The Christmas special was okay. Anyone who watched The Big Bang Theory knows about Saturnalia, but this may be the first time with Peanuts characters acting it out.

I was actually least impressed with the "don't give gifts" part of the show. Intrinsic value isn't as quantifiable as the example. Under that theory, everyone should be getting socks and underwear, and not the designer kind, because the market value is more stable.

0

Share Post


Link to post

I didn't think the message was "don't give gifts", I think it was "give something the person wants, not something you want to buy". Using the sock example, my boyfriend's mom bought him socks again, but this year they were Pokemon socks. She thought they were adorable (which they are). He was perplexed because he has no real interest in Pokemon, never mentioned Pokemon to her, and he felt that they were a little embarrassing. For him, the socks were a loss. I, however, play Pokemon Go like an addict and have no belief that my socks are meant to display maturity. I saw the socks as a gain, so he regifted them to me.

The theoretical lesson is that, if we're talking intrinsic value, she could have purchased the Star Trek socks from his wish list instead because he explicitly expressed interest in them. Same financial cost, but greater happiness for the recipient.

2

Share Post


Link to post

I think the point of the Christmas show (and really, this whole series) is to get you to question conventional wisdom/what you believe, not necessarily to accept the shows theories in total.  But I actually agree on the show's theory on the intrinsic value of the gifts and that's probably why buying people gifts drives me nuts.  I know I'm terrible at it and I wish there was a way to do away with the whole gift giving thing.

1

Share Post


Link to post
On 12/28/2016 at 9:41 AM, notyrmomma said:

I think the point of the Christmas show (and really, this whole series) is to get you to question conventional wisdom/what you believe, not necessarily to accept the shows theories in total.  But I actually agree on the show's theory on the intrinsic value of the gifts and that's probably why buying people gifts drives me nuts.  I know I'm terrible at it and I wish there was a way to do away with the whole gift giving thing.

 

With the exception of 'for the kids', we gave up gift giving in my family years ago. If you really think about it, holiday gift giving is a stupid idea that only benefits those selling crappy products that most don't want or need.  It doesn't help the economy, it hurts it by encouraging retailers to stock garbage in place of more useful and durable product.

2

Share Post


Link to post
On 12/28/2016 at 7:41 AM, notyrmomma said:

I think the point of the Christmas show (and really, this whole series) is to get you to question conventional wisdom/what you believe, not necessarily to accept the shows theories in total.  But I actually agree on the show's theory on the intrinsic value of the gifts and that's probably why buying people gifts drives me nuts.  I know I'm terrible at it and I wish there was a way to do away with the whole gift giving thing.

I've stopped giving gifts at expected times (Christmas, birthdays).  I've been at siblings' and friends' houses on Christmas, and sometimes they'll give me something, but I don't have anything for them.  So it's awkward, but to me, that's far preferable to putting pressure on myself to get them something, anything.  I look at it this way:  if they want to give me something, fine.  If they do it again even after I don't give them anything in return, then they must really want to give me something, which is fine.  And if they stop giving me things after I don't give them anything in return, then that means they weren't doing it just because they wanted to so it's better for everyone involved that they stop.  But I'm a curmudgeon.

I loved Adam's thing on charity (I'm catching up on previous episodes--I think this was the first one).  I've done volunteer work at a food pantry , and for the Red Cross after the Haiti earthquake, and he's 100% right about donations.  I also worked at a hospice where someone got peeved that we didn't want the hospital bed she wanted to donate--where were we supposed to keep it until someone needed it, and at that point, how were we supposed to move it, and not to make light of the situation, but it's a hospice, a program that generally has clients for only a short time, so this giant hospital bed was going to have to be moved around all the time.

But I'll quibble with Adam's take on the aluminum can pull tabs (actually, I usually find one thing to quibble about in each episode):  those pull tabs aren't worthless, as he said; they are worth whatever aluminum scrap is worth, and I'm pretty sure I read this in the very snopes.com article he referred to.  But some charities still accept them and actually promote them, because it's a way for them to have people give them something, and it's a lot cleaner than actual cans.

But even with the pull tabs, the organization has to store them and somehow get them to the aluminum recycling place to exchange them for a tiny bit of money, which is a hassle.  But they can't afford to alienate people who might one day actually write a check.  It's a shame.

1

Share Post


Link to post

That's Rhea Butcher. Anyone who's not prone to pearl clutching and bigoted attitudes toward women should check out her stand up, as well as her sitcom "Take My Wife" which airs on Seeso).

2

Share Post


Link to post

I'm much more familiar with Cameron Esposito's work than Rhea's. They both seem to show up on podcasts I listen to but I've seen a lot more of Cameron's stand up. She is just sharp and funny. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
On 1/2/2017 at 2:30 PM, possibilities said:

That's Rhea Butcher. Anyone who's not prone to pearl clutching and bigoted attitudes toward women should check out her stand up, as well as her sitcom "Take My Wife" which airs on Seeso).

Wearing pearls is now considered bigoted?  Crap!  Those were a hand me down from my great grandma.  Now what will I do?  I guess I will store them in the back of my closet with grandma's mink coat ;)

0

Share Post


Link to post

Pearl-clutching bigot reminds me of what Roger Ebert wrote about the phrase "that would make a sailor blush" because it implied sailors were both extremely foul mouthed and easily offended.

0

Share Post


Link to post
Official Post

Nowhere was it posted that people who wear pearls are bigots. It's time to move on. Let's get back to discussing the episodes rather than dissecting the etymology of colloquialisms.

0

Share Post


Link to post
On 1/2/2017 at 0:30 PM, possibilities said:

That's Rhea Butcher. Anyone who's not prone to pearl clutching and bigoted attitudes toward women should check out her stand up, as well as her sitcom "Take My Wife" which airs on Seeso).

Rhea Butcher was on Alison Rosen's podcast this week. I'm about to listen to it now.

1

Share Post


Link to post

If your going to cite a fact, don't use an article that's 21 years old - first rule of scholarship and credibility in research.

0

Share Post


Link to post
6 hours ago, wallysmommy said:

If your going to cite a fact, don't use an article that's 21 years old - first rule of scholarship and credibility in research.

Context? 

0

Share Post


Link to post

Buying a home is a bad investment.  Rent instead.  Cited an article from Belgium from 1996.  

1

Share Post


Link to post

I wish he had spent a little more time on reality shows on the Hollywood episode, and not just the social ones.  What about the game show ones?  Like TAR, or Survivor, or Project Runway?  I'd like to know how much the winner is a foregone conclusion before the show begins, or if it really is something someone can win.

0

Share Post


Link to post
On 5/8/2017 at 5:35 AM, MelinaBallerina said:

I wish he had spent a little more time on reality shows on the Hollywood episode, and not just the social ones.  What about the game show ones?  Like TAR, or Survivor, or Project Runway?  I'd like to know how much the winner is a foregone conclusion before the show begins, or if it really is something someone can win.

For a real good version of how that stuff works watch season one of Unreal. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
20 hours ago, PatternRec said:

For a real good version of how that stuff works watch season one of Unreal. 

Even Season 1 of Unreal had a lot of plot contrivances. I actually thought the Spike TV Joe Schmo show provided a good window into what a reality show pretends to be.

1

Share Post


Link to post

I feel like the tone of this episode was a little different. Maybe just because having a baby is such an emotionally charged situation, but Adam seemed much less snarky and more empathetic. Maybe it works this time, but I hope it isn't an ongoing shift.

3

Share Post


Link to post

I hadn't noticed the different tone, and you're right.  I did notice that they showed part of a one-on-one he had with one of the experts, which I hadn't seen him do before.  But as you noted, he stepped right into a mine field on this one and needed to tread carefully.  That episode must have taken a lot of work.  But like you, I enjoy the snark and hope this was just a situational thing.

And debunking myths is important!  I was just talking to a friend in Denver (not some backwater) who is intelligent and well educated.  She had her first baby at 36, and when I asked if she was going to have another, she said she was open to it but it needed to happen pretty quick because her doctor told her women can't get pregnant using their own eggs after they're 42.  I immediately thought "42" seemed awfully specific for something like that (that's the "Adam" in me), and told her that I know of two different women who had unexpected unplanned pregnancies much later than that--one at 49 and one at 50.  I don't know what happened with the pregnant-at-49 one (she was a friend of a friend), but the 50 year old had a healthy baby.  I suspect both had been told something similar to what my Denver friend was told by her doctor, with problematic results.

3

Share Post


Link to post

Pauleen and white sugar being better than brown made me want to send low-sugar treats to the Adam Ruins Everything writing staff!

0

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now