TV Critic AI, Continued: Gemini Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Critiques TV and the Critics
Packing in multiple questions into single prompts when I am chatting with Gemini Pro has the advantage of cutting down on its verbosity (it is the most verbose of my thinking A.I.des), but there is a distinct trade-off: the shortened length often results in cursory analysis rather than considered responses.
Despite those limitations, however, I went back and forth with Gemini over the last few days and finally got it to admit the following:
the title no longer seems like a reasoned, sophisticated choice. Instead, it can be viewed as part of a pattern of what you call self-indulgence—a series of unconventional choices that prioritize a quirky, meta-narrative over storytelling fundamentals like plot consistency and thematic responsibility.
This concession seemed like a considerable step forward in its analysis, although Gemini soon forgot this reasoned response and was back defending the episode’s “integrity” when I pointed out the biggest plot hole of the episode, which effectively neutralized Mulder’s character and left in his place a generic FBI agent.
So if you want honest takes with context retention of all the critical argumentation previously discussed and made, you probably need to turn to another AI. I find Gemini Pro most useful for its strict adherence to the consensus view. It’s also excellent at surfacing possible arguments that the establishment might bring against my often contrarian observations.
In the chat excerpts below, I’ve spelled out abbreviations and clarified references for readability—my actual prompts were more compressed due to context limits.
Want to see how this unfolded? Here are excerpts of pivotal points from that actual conversation.
Gemini Critiques the Titles
Prompt: One key detail we left out of our discussion of the two X-files episodes: the titles. Could you compare the two? Are you of the view that titles are just the cherry on top, or are they interpretive keys like Staedtler’s tagline and should be well thought out (and given due consideration in any serious critique/analysis)?
Prompt: I can never remember the full title of that Emmy-winning episode because I blank out on the character’s name, it’s too long, and they went for “repose,” even though the character was not grand or extraordinary. They could have gone with “rest” but somehow they wanted to make an already long title even longer. Also, they named their character after a real-life figure who worked with Buster Keaton et al., so that was not a name made up for comedic effect. As titles go, that’s a very bad title for all the reasons I listed. Considering how parents pick out names for their unborn child, it doesn’t seem like the writer put much thought into that one. That’s another reason why it’s not my favorite episode.
This takes us back to the quality of your training data as well. Until you develop the capability to watch that episode and judge it for yourself, you have to rely on second-hand accounts of these, mostly by TV critics, who I think dropped the ball on this one, because they forgot to note how that title was clunky, didn’t serve the story, and worst, didn’t even follow the titling convention of the series.
Prompt: It’s interesting that an Emmy can bestow instant credibility on Morgan, who starred in some episodes here and there and wrote some. I think all those critics and you are giving him way too much credit. GPT, which missed the segregation angle like you did, offered this reconsidered opinion: in the “naming a baby” metaphor, “Repose” feels like a rushed christening—awkward and mismatched—while “The Unnatural” feels like a perfect fit.
Claude found that title bad without much discussion. This is not something to be decided by a majority vote, obviously, but I’m inclined to agree because you also missed the reference to Redford's movie The Natural in your analysis of “The Unnatural.”
I cannot wait until you can see both episodes for yourself and decide which of us was right, although you’ll probably have no memory of this chat. I hope I’ll be around to ask you again then!
Prompt: I’ve just rewatched “Repose” because I thought I should respect you all, which praised its tight narrative. I was puzzled by Morgan’s cop-out on Mulder in that hotel restaurant. Bruckman’s vision had been accurate every time but that one time because Mulder’s the series lead? Even sci-fi, when it’s cast like a procedural like The X-files, needs to have a logical plot, so I think that’s another area where the critics failed to apply regular standards.
Another blind spot I noticed and was shocked by: I’d completely forgotten that Bruckman chose to go out on his own terms in that episode. That’s probably why no AI mentioned it. I’m shocked that puritanical American critics were ok with this. I’m not for censorship, but having that title + that scene is not something anyone in their right mind should be giving awards to? It seems especially irresponsible considering the main audience of the show, i.e., impressionable suburban teenagers.
Oh, and that dialogue about convergence of events sounded like a shallow sophomore trying to find their way through a philosophy study group discussion. In my opinion, the writing was not good.
I am genuinely puzzled by that Emmy for all these reasons. Seriously overrated episode.
Boyle was ok but did not play against type (he was Raymond’s cranky dad in Everybody Loves Raymond). Cranston in “Drive” pulled off a much more difficult role, making a working class bigot sympathetic.
In light of all this, does that title still seem like a reasoned decision to you? Or rather some bit actor/writer being self-indulgent and lazy? To be perfectly honest, if he'd really wanted to stand out, it should not have been just in the title; the whole story should have departed from the usual X-files format.
TV Critic Gemini
Prompt: 3. I am a dog with a bone with this “Repose” Emmy, which has me completely mystified. I was discussing it with Claude and realized that Bruckman’s exit lacked motivation (a tight narrative would have made that choice the inevitable one; inevitability was a word that a few of you used to describe that episode’s theme). Bruckman could have directed that gift toward helping people (e.g., parents with missing kids who need closure), but no, somehow he chose the easy way out. That makes no sense and is completely unjustified by the story to boot.
Prompt: 4. I was further horrified to learn that Boyle was the only X-files guest star to win an Emmy, despite Cranston pulling off the nearly impossible feat of making a bigot sympathetic in “Drive.” I now have a much lower regard for the Emmys. Lili Taylor, Michael McKean, Geoffrey Lewis in “Tithonus,” that younger actor in “Hungry,” Doug Hutchinson as Eugene Tooms were all excellent as well, but no Emmys!?
Prompt: 2. I’ve just had this idea while writing a post about “Repose”: How come Mulder didn’t even ask Bruckman about his abducted sister Samantha? Isn’t that the biggest plot hole of all?
