Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Showtime: Californication

davos

By davos,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

davos Grand Master

davos

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Is it just him going around banging everybody? Not that that's a problem, but Entourage already does that.

I actually like it for the writing and music. He is definitely a womanizer, but a very flawed writer and individual. Californication has really great scripts to show for it. Its definitely not as care free and lazy as Entourage

And its simply a plus to see great tits in the show ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr beauxjangles Newbie

mr beauxjangles

Posted
Posted

If you just saw the first few episodes of the first season, I could see how you might have been turned off. The Pilot was not very good. But this show has gotten better. And it is hilarious. Yes, it's basically the sexual adventures of Hank Moody, but the family dynamics between Hank and his daughter and the other characters on the show give it more substance.

In my opinion, Entourage has gone downhill a bit and I definitely prefer Californication. Vince is a worthless character at this point. Eric, Ari, Turtle...hell even Lloyd...have more interesting characters than Vince. The only reason I watch is for the other characters. Vince is like a prop now.

Agree that Weeds is better than Californication; the stories are just more intense.

Give Californication a shot. Watch more than one episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davos Grand Master

davos

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah solid show, I like the little MILF on there Pamela Adlon

Weeds IMO has sucked ass the last three seasons, it should of ended after agrestic burned down ever since then its been very contrived.

QFT

I love Weeds, but the last two seasons have been meh, even with Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...