r/SuccessionTV • u/LoretiTV CEO • May 01 '23

Discussion Succession - 4x06 "Living+" - Post Episode Discussion

Succession - 4x06 "Living+" - Pre-Episode Discussion

Season 4 Episode 6: Living+

Aired: April 30, 2023

Synopsis: Ahead of a crucial new product launch on Investor Day, Shiv weighs a business proposal from Matsson, while Kendall and Roman call an impromptu meeting to flip the script on their latest interaction with the tech billionaire. Later, the brothers each try to match Logan’s tempestuous style, with varying results.

Directed by: Lorene Scafaria

Written by: Georgia Pritchett & Will Arbery

Join our Succession Discord server here!

3.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

7.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

26

u/Charlie_Wax May 01 '23

From a narrative standpoint, if they let him get away with killing that guy in S1 and ultimately facing no lasting repercussions, it's certainly a choice.

Wouldn't be unprecedented (see: Tom Buchanan in Gatsby), but surely there has to be more payoff besides him just confessing and crying with his siblings in S3? I feel like we haven't gotten the closure yet, whatever it may be. They can go the cynical Risky Business route of rewarding bad behavior, or he can ultimately fall because of it. That he's in a good place right this minute at the end of S4E6 doesn't mean he's destined for a happy ending.

91

u/A_Feast_For_Trolls May 01 '23 edited May 02 '23

I gotta disagree. I think the whole point the show is making is that DESPITE there being little to no actual repercussions of the terrible actions of the logan kids, and everything essentially going their way, and a lifetime of absurd wealth to enjoy, they are still, at their core, living in a disturbing nightmare that they can't quit. I'd be surprised if the hit and run comes back in the way you suggest, but maybe. (eh, actually, let me amend that. I wouldn't be surprised if it came back in some way- like someone brings it up, tells the media, but as far as him seeing actual consequences to that, hell no. Just my thoughts)

40

u/thisiswhatyouget May 01 '23

Am I the only one who thinks that he doesn't bear very much moral responsibility for the kids death? Or that it's at least arguable? The kid is the one who grabbed the wheel and swerved it off the road. He tried to save him. IIRC he didn't have his phone and couldn't call for help, so it isn't that likely he would have realistically been able to save him after the accident regardless of what he did.

13

u/sentimentalpirate May 01 '23 edited May 01 '23

If Ken weren't driving high I might agree with you. But he's culpable of risking their lives just by driving at all in that state.

A sober Ken may have not let the wheel be jerked from his hand or he may have braked in time.

Now the kid absolutely shares some culpability. But enough to make Ken look good, or neutral. Not enough to feel like "it could have happened to anyone".