All Activity

Yes, an attorney but I can't remember if he's a solicitor or a barrister. Trixie was talking about getting him a job with her Lord friend who had chambers, so that would mean he's a barrister but maybe I'm remembering wrong. He doesn't seem the type to be hanging 'round the Old Bailey with Rumpole, but he's probably a Guthrie Featherstone/Claude Erskine Brown type, working the corporate side of things. Still with his raised consciousness now, he probably would be a Rumpole type! (Also, it's hilarious to think that if he was a barrister, he would be there with those characters, since the original Rumpole of the Bailey was set in 1969. Sort of similar to Jane Tennison, Inspectors Morse, Lewis, Daiglesh, Lynley and Havers all working at the same time. Wonder if someone's written a fic of them all attending some police all day training/seminar...but I digress!)

Yesterday had its highlights (Tracy! Ned sighting!) but a bit of a letdown compared to the day before. A soap wedding needs a little drama and a few obstacles and Gregory's ALS is just depressing. Any drama connected to Chase just feels like kicking puppies. But at least it's almost over?

Again with the laws. It's more about the gravity of the consequence for not taking care. I know that it's in my best interest to be mindful and careful when crossing the street even though I would expect a driver to do everything in their power to not hit pedestrians. My point is that I also have a responsibility to MY OWN safety and throwing myself in front of oncoming traffic without first seeing if its clear is a dumb and reckless thing to do. Same way a person should be mindful of what sort of atmosphere there are creating for themselves when engaging is distasteful behavior among others. Basically there's 50/50 chance shit won't go your way. Right or wrong its still boils down to it being a Roll of the dice. I personally think it's a stupid risk to take. But that's just me.

Shardlake is a 4 episode Tudor murder mystery TV Series streaming on May 1, 2024 on Hulu, based on a seven novel series by C.J. Sansom. The first book, Dissolution (2003), introduces readers to Matthew Shardlake, a hunchback (“crookback”, scoliosis) lawyer-turned-detective with an acute sense of honsety and justice in 16th century, Tudor England. Shardlake is sent by Thomas Cromwell, the right-hand man to Henry VIII, the ultimate Tudor powerbroker, to investigate the beheading of Robin Singleton in the remote town of Scarnsea, Singleton is the commissioner responsible for disbanding monasteries after Henry VIII declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. Jack Barak is ordered to accompany Shardlake in his task, but is he an assistant, or Cromwell's spy. Arthur Hughes as Matthew Shardlake Anthony Boyle as Jack Barak Sean Bean as Thomas Cromwell Damian Lewis as Henry VIII Babou Ceesay as Abbot Fabian Paul Kaye as Brother Jerome Ruby Ashbourne Serkis as Alice Peter Firth as Norfolk Matthew Steer as Goodhap Brian Vernel as Brother Mortimus Irfan Shamji as Brother Guy David Pearse as Brother Edwig Miles Barrow as Brother Gabriel Mike Noble as Bugge Kimberley Nixon as Joan

It also goes in two directions these days...just sayin.....

In the official podcast they said Blackthorne's vision of the future was a dream, not his future.

"well they'll go to jail" "being physical vs. verbal will get you in more trouble" What people seem to forget is that people lose it. No rhyme or reason. That high horse isn't going to keep a person out of the hospital. Erratic behavior isn't some rare compulsion. It's a real and common thing. I mean road rage happens and it's the most bizarre thing you can witness but it's not unheard of or some once in a blue thing. That right there shows us that people can just have sparatic episodes of emotional distress where reason and good judgement go out the window. It's better to be safe than sorry and going around wanting to test random people on their emotional discipline for shits and giggles is just such a mindboggling pass time to me. Just sayin'.

With 10 episodes and the latest press release being available for the 8th episode, it looks like the season finale will likely be on May 21

This isn't your best example, I don't think. There are actually laws about how you as a pedestrian can cross the street. For example, if you cross in the middle of the street, it's jaywalking, and it's illegal. And yet, even if you break this law, a driver of a car is expected to do everything they possibly can to not hit the jaywalker. If they do not do everything they can, they will be charged with hitting the jaywalker, even though the jaywalker committed the first "crime." Candiace never committed a crime. Monique did. Drivers are expected to avoid pedestrians regardless of how badly the pedestrian behaves. Hitting a pedestrian with your car is only going to be excused if you absolutely couldn't prevent it. Even if I run out in front of your car over and over, taunting you to run me over, you still are not allowed to do it or it's you've become a criminal too (which has happened with drivers hitting protesters). Monique did not do everything she could to prevent the altercation from going from verbal to physical, and that's why her actions are criminal and Candiace's are not. Candiace did not put Monique in a situation where Monique could not prevent herself from assaulting Candiace.

With 10 episodes and the latest press release being available for the 8th episode, it looks like the season finale will likely be on May 21

With 10 episodes and the latest press release being available for the 8th episode, it looks like the season finale will likely be on May 21

I don't know that I would care; Robert Palmer can and I still despise that song, haha!

On one hand, in your face, Chelsea!!! On the other, this weekend might be slightly awkward with my Chelsea-supporting best friend.

The flash-forward Blackthorne held Mariko's rosary beads, but he dropped them in the lake with Fujiko. I really enjoyed the finale. I want to rewatch before commenting further but Toranaga and Fujiko were pitch perfect in this.

Clearly the new story will be the air marshal. Right?

LOOOOOVVVEEE THIS!! Yeah, I grew up in the Bronx so I don't see my take on things as defending or justifying it but more like a public service announcement. LOL. I mean, its crazy to me how people really do simplify these matters. Yes, it's wrong to lay hands, OBVIOUSLY but I mean people still will depending on the circumstances and to ignore that detail when choosing how to interact is just plain ole foolish. People want to be "right" so bad, but to me it ain't really about right and wrong it's about smarts and playing it safe. I get that it's wrong but I'm also going to be mindful about the fact that people do wrong shit all the time so I can't COUNT on someone NOT reacting a certain way so it makes sense to just not engage in childish verbal assaults.

Gambit has always been my favorite X-Men character, too, but I was happy Channing never got to play the role. While I appreciate his admiration for the character, he was just never the right person in my mind (and we know that is all that matters 😀) for the role.

Xotchitl (sochi)

Doesn't help that the guy can't sing.

I am mildly surprised the verse is in contemporary English not King James.

This was one which sounded really interesting to me, so I hope HBO eventually changes their minds.

I did get UNCF but did the same thing you did with CERN. My dad used to have some sort of obsession with Toshiro Mifune. Not sure why, as he didn't watch foreign films, but I guess the actor was in a WWII movie he saw. Dad loved his WWII movies. (Edited to note: Some googling gave me Hell in the Pacific with Lee Marvin - that had to be it.) I remembered the commercials I used to see for it, with the aforementioned "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" as the tagline. That's how I knew it. I also remember this infamous Vice Presidential moment: "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." (Vice President Dan Quayle - this was part of his address to the United Negro College Fund, whose slogan is "a mind is a terrible thing to waste")" Me too.

I remember that after reading the play in high school (and I was already familiar with it and loved it), we were led to the school auditorium to watch this movie. And I was frankly puzzled: why were so many lines missing, while bits never dreamed of by Shakespeare (like the ballet sequences) went on interminably? I was alternately frustrated and bored. Now, all these years later, I find it rather fascinating, but for the surrounding circumstances rather than its contents. The legendary director Max Reinhardt, having fled Germany, directed a spectacular production of A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Hollywood Bowl and then was invited to make a film (with Olivia De Havilland and Mickey Rooney retained from the stage cast, but movie people otherwise imported). His theatrical taste was probably already becoming a bit old-fashioned at the time, and was certainly idiosyncratic; that pas de deux of the sinister male fairy carrying off the fluttering female fairy was evidently important to him, as he had included it in the live production as well. I may just be insensitive to ballet, but I'd rather get on with the story (it's a good story, after all). And I have to remind myself that there was little tradition for Shakespeare on film at that date, so to see such a sumptuous production must have meant a lot to those interested. And it launched Eric Wolfgang Korngold in his groundbreaking film-music career; he adapted and arranged Mendelssohn's music here and was given a free hand with it, and its effectiveness got him launched into his many wonderful film scores. Now we're spoiled for choice with movies of this play. Last I looked, just Prime had 3 or 4 to offer (many of them recent ones that I had no idea existed). So I find it easier to be indulgent toward the oddball charms of the 1935 one, even if I roll my eyes at some of the acting and can't consider it a satisfying rendering of the play.

I'd like to DITTO this post, it saved me a lot of time typing the same thing! I watched yesterday's show last night and loved Lily siding with Billy on Natey Nate Nate, who like Darvon, appeared shocked he wasn't made a Board member. Having said that, that is not a real Board. Boards have others not in the C Suite on them, and there are strict agenda rules to follow, most quite tedious tbh. You don't waltz in and say you want to vote on a new Board member WITH that non Board member in a Board meeting when he's, yanno, not a Board member! The whole scene was preposterous. I realized something last night watching the Lily/Mamie scene. Firstly, it's not Jill causing thr problems, it's always Mamie. It is she who is obsessed with besting Jill and pulling one over on her. I loved Lily telling her off, but she doesn't even respond when Lily infers it is Mamie causing all thr trouble. I hope Lily continues to nit let Mamie bully her into carrying out her very personal agenda. I cracked up when The Three Stooges were standing in the hallway natyering on about where Jordan might be and Dave yells put, 'Thats all I know!' FOR some reason that just landed very funny.

Nothing about this episode or the whole Maddie arc makes sense because the story only exists to service St. Olivia. The writers wanted certain beats to happen and forced the story to fit those beats. Whole plot points were discarded and logic went out the window. I still cringe at the idea that "the only witness" was the drug dealer from Pittsburgh who conveniently dies off screen in jail when you have the guy from Episode One who paid George to kidnap Maddie for him, and the guy George sold Maddie to in a later episode. What happened to those guys and the forensic accounting linking George to them? How did St. Olivia's detectives not notice the lock of Maddie's hair in that necklace he was wearing around his neck? Why when that was pointed out to them by Maddie did Carisi not secure that as evidence? I could go on about how badly this whole arc was written just to prop up St. Olivia.