ThatsDarling
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by ThatsDarling
-
-
20 hours ago, ProudMary said:
In my opinion, it's particularly galling that this controversy is occurring in THIS category where it's been TWENTY-ONE YEARS since Halle Berry won the Best Actress Oscar and she's STILL the only Black woman ever to have done so. Meanwhile, two Black actresses, each of whom was considered a top tier contender for a Best Actress nomination this year for their outstanding lead performances, are sitting on the bench, with the top prize once again out of reach.
One of the first Oscar races I followed closely was the year Gabourey Sidibe was nominated for Precious. I thought she was handily the best in her category, but she was never seriously discussed as a potential winner (the Oscar eventually went to Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side). Young actresses win Oscars regularly, but they usually have an It Girl narrative (not many black actresses are given that treatment by the industry/media to begin with, let alone those who are dark-skinned and plus size). The way she and Carey Mulligan were discussed by the press during that season was night and day.
More recently, I would argue that Alfre Woodard should have been nominated and won for Clemency (a small, brilliant film that deserved a passion push like To Leslie received this year) and that both Tessa Thompson and Ruth Negga were overlooked for Passing.
-
7
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, blackwing said:
I'm a little puzzled at the questioning of Riseborough's nomination, because my initial thought was, haven't the Oscars always been like this? Many have long derided the Best Actress wins of both Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Lawrence as having been bought and paid for by Harvey Weinstein. How is this any different?
As for the assertion that Davis has been nominated so many times before and has already won... I would disagree. She has four nominations and one win. If there was a "she's been awarded enough" then Meryl Streep wouldn't have 20+ nominations and 3 wins. Or Frances McDormand. 6 nominations, 3 wins, wins are all for Best Actress. She has more Best Actress wins than La Streep. Her last win came at the expense of Viola Davis who I believe was viewed as something of the frontrunner for "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom", especially after she won the SAG Award.
Ugh, Jennifer Lawrence's win for Silver Linings Playbook is one of my least favorites in the history of the category. Emmanuelle Riva was so much better in Amour; that Oscar was all about celebrating the It Girl of the moment instead of the work. Lawrence was obnoxious on the campaign trail, too, joking about Riva, an 85-year-old woman, being no match for her and saying that fellow nominee Quvenzhané Wallis should "give the alphabet its letters back."
As for Viola Davis, I don't think she is perceived as over-awarded by the Academy, but nomination voting favors passion over consensus, and there was much speculation on the awards forums that she would miss out as her type of role was unlikely to generate #1 votes on ballots. Other Oscar favorites like Amy Adams, Emma Thompson, Nicole Kidman, and Cate Blanchett (who missed last year for Nightmare Alley) still sometimes miss out, even after scoring big precursor nominations.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, yowsah1 said:
That seems to be a factor in the many bitter complaints I have seen on Twitter and elsewhere. The argument seems to boil down to (I am paraphrasing here) "Riseborough used her famous buddies to swing herself a nomination at the direct expense of superior Black actresses. White Privilege in action". And, yeah, the exclusion of Vioila and Danielle was a bit of a headscratcher. (In Davis's case, there may be a sense among Oscar voters that she has been nominated and won so much that it's time to start honoring some other talented actresses).
I don't understand the assertion that Viola Davis, who has won every industry acting award and is likely to become an EGOT next month, is somehow less connected than Riseborough, a low-key character actress who works largely in independent film.
Aggressive awards campaigns are par for the course, unfortunately, but we are conditioned to accept them in the form of paid for magazine covers, roundtable placements, luncheons, and For Your Consideration ads.
Some of the backlash is undoubtedly from the big studios who spent millions of dollars to position their actresses for Oscar nominations and came up short. They are angry that they lost out to a peer-backed campaign with a shoestring budget. It feels very elitist to me.
There is also a whole cottage industry that has formed around awards season -- the pundits narrow the projected contenders down to 7-8 by fall and spend the next few months predicting which combination will land Oscar nods. Riseborough, despite her rave reviews for To Leslie, was not part of this conversation until very recently, and even then many of the prognosticators were not taking her seriously due to the smallness of her film and the lack of a big studio push. There is, I think, a bitterness there that she was nominated without their support.
If Viola Davis and/or Danielle Deadwyler should have been nominated, why could they not have taken the place of Ana de Armas or Michelle Williams? The latter two campaigned heavily as well (with big studio backing); Blonde is not nearly as well received critically as To Leslie, while Michelle Williams did not get Riseborough's level of rave notices and is borderline supporting in her film. The impulse is to push out the least famous of the nominees, which I don't think is right.
-
7
-
-
Neville to Louise: "Our brother Aaaron died."
I understand this expository dialogue was for the benefit of the audience, who has no idea who Aaron is, but there had to be another way to get this across without Nelville having to clarify to his sister that Aaron was their brother.
It reminds me of an early episode in which Jackie told Becky "I know things have been difficult for you since your husband passed away."
-
1
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Rocknrollzombie said:
I know some of are oh well whatever he was hardly on it anyway. Michael technically just lost a job where is the sympathy. Yeah sure he may say everything’s fine and directing may have been a thing he enjoyed. But how would you feel if you were on a show, they hardly wrote for your character, gave you a few lines here and there and supposedly the person who plays your spouse was supposed to get more screen time on the show for the previous season and the writers never write anything for your character.
no sir, that is just bs. They could have given DJ storylines they could have developed his family as well. But no the damm show has to be centered on two 40 year old women pushing into their 50s and their stupid drama. Show better have fun losing viewers for the powers that be decisions.
Now he knows how the lost girls from season one of The Facts of Life feel.
I think this is just a change in billing and Fishman will return for a series of brief, intermittent appearances later in S5.
-
On 3/28/2022 at 11:15 AM, Yogisbooboo64 said:
Glad Jessica Chastain finally one, she should have won the first time over the annoyingly obnoxious Jennifer Lawrence (remember her unfunny ‘Jessica Chastain’t gonna win my Oscar?!)
I do remember that, as well as Jennifer Lawrence making fun of fellow nominee Emmanuelle Riva's age (she was 85 when she received her Best Actress nomination for Amour) and Quvenzhané Wallis's name. It was so rude, especially considering she was by that point the frontrunner to win over them for what I thought was a highly overpraised performance in Silver Linings Playbook.
Jessica Chastain was wonderful in Eyes of Tammy Faye and I was so happy to see her win. Her speech was beautiful -- I appreciated her thoughtfulness, graciousness in honoring her fellow nominees, and that she chose to spotlight LGBTQ rights and suicide prevention.
-
15
-
-
12 hours ago, ESS said:
Poor Jackie, but I'm so glad they worked it out with the landlord, though he was such a jerk, so funny when Rebel sprayed him with hose he deserved it. FYI: Sarah sounds like her mother I was very surprised by that because I've never heard her speak before now.
The moment I heard Jackie speak, I thought "there is no way this actress is not Katey Sagal's daughter in real life." Their voices and rhythms of speech are so similar.
-
3
-
-
On 2/19/2021 at 6:33 PM, One Tough Cookie said:
I think Laurie Metcalf's overacting is ruining the show. Sh'es way too hyper and overbearing for me. and in spite of her being a life coach? If anyone was searching for one she is a terrible example.
I've seen Laurie Metcalf in other recent projects, including several of her Tony-nominated stage performances, and consider her to be one of our most inventive, compelling, and versatile performers.
If my only exposure to her was the role of Jackie Harris on The Conners, however, I would be singing a different tune. Admittedly, the writing for her character is weak, but her performance is too broad for my liking. When an actor goes as over the top as Metcalf often does here, the direction is also to blame; I think there is a collective misunderstanding of what made the character interesting on the original show, and what viewers find entertaining.
-
10
-
-
4 hours ago, t7686 said:
It was an okay episode. I'm not finding it that funny or good any more tbh. I don't remember them being this sarcastic and mean to each other in the original series and I miss the more family scenes. Where's DJ? I think they need to flesh out why Becky doesn't to be with Emilio because her whiplash is confusing. lol Meh.
I don't remember the Conners being as gross on the original series, either. Storing beef jerky in the toilet and comments on how bad the couch smells? Ugh.
-
12
-
-
3 hours ago, UYI said:
(I also hold the somewhat unpopular opinion that Lecy Goranson was in many ways a MUCH better actress on the original show than she often got credit for, and was pushed aside WAY too much in favor of Sara Gilbert--and after proving at the beginning of this show that she is just as good as Sara, maybe even better now, that seems to be happening AGAIN--but that's a rant for another day.)
Lecy Goranson was terrific on original recipe Roseanne--one of the most realistic portrayals of a teenager I've ever seen on a sitcom. Her work may have been a little too realistic to garner much attention, however, and the Becky character did not have the hook of Sara Gilbert's sarcastic, anti-cheerleader Darlene.
I can't say I'm as enthusiastic about what she's doing on The Conners, though this show isn't much of an acting showcase for anyone. Would still be nice to see her get a little more of the screen time that is currently allotted to Darlene.
-
6
-
-
On 11/27/2020 at 5:10 PM, Irate Panda said:
I’m really trying to get into this show and I don’t know if it’s because I’m comparing it Roseanne or it’s just depressing and at times convoluted. First, I think the cast is too big for a 30 minute sitcom, where basically everyone except DJ is getting major storylines, yet I always think Darlene gets way too much time. She just seems so irritating, I have no idea why Ben would even be around her and why was the Boss so shocked Becky lived with her Dad, but it somehow seemed ok for Darlene. I hope they tone Jackie down.
The cast is too big, and the frequent additions of recurring characters gives me the impression that the writers are not sure where to take the show, so they are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
I'm not holding my breath for a toned down Jackie. Laurie Metcalf said recently in an interview that she was given permission to play the character as broad as possible, and was taking advantage of it "because Jackie is a broad character...She's crazy."
Metcalf is one of our finest actors, but every performer needs a director who can modulate their work, and she's not getting it on The Conners. Knowing what she's capable of and seeing her play a walking exclamation point every week is a shame, but I suppose she's laughing all the way to the bank.
-
9
-
-
The previews made such a big deal about Darlene being with child, I suspected it was a red herring. My hunch is that she will end up pregnant before the end of the season; the chance of naturally conceiving during perimenopause is quite low, but it's still possible, especially in sitcom world. I doubt the writers would have emphasized how much Darlene and Ben wanted a child together if they did not intend for it to happen down the line.
It's odd to me that the go-to storyline for many family sitcoms is for the female lead to become pregnant at some point, even if she is in her forties and already has nearly grown children. A pregnancy is only good for so many episodes worth of story telling, and when the baby arrives, it is difficult to significantly incorporate them into the plot, unless you age them by five or so years during a summer hiatus (it would actually not surprise me if these writers did this).
-
8
-
-
20 minutes ago, ljenkins782 said:
The "bottle" in question was milk, she knew Roseanne when the girls were babies, hence the remark about remembering when Darlene was born.
Yes, Becky was the book smart, hard worker while Darlene was effortlessly smart. Roseanne projected her unfulfilled dreams onto Darlene because she saw her as a younger version of herself.
I can see both sides of it. Yes, Darlene has the right to hate her job and honestly, I doubt anyone there actually LIKES their jobs. And yet, I can still imagine people being put off if someone acted like they were too good for the job. It is a bit of a roundabout insult, the implication being that the job is fine for someone, just not someone as special as Darlene envisioned herself being. And standoffishness generally does make a person unpopular with others even if there's no ill intent behind it.
I feel like the show is *almost* funny. There are some good lines sprinkled in, but it doesn't all gel the way the original did.
I'm not a big fan of Mark being the vehicle for all the "very special episode" dialogue. I feel like every time he talks, it's an overly earnest, stilted speech about whatever issue they're trying to highlight.
Overall, I find it all a bit depressing, especially cause I've been watching the original on Prime. It's depressing to see the girls as kids and think about what a bleak future they have. The Booker flashback from an earlier episode just made me sad, hard to believe so much time has passed.
I haven't rewatched the original series in years, but if I recall correctly, Becky was initially the daughter with whom Roseanne shared the closer and more specific relationship. The idea that Darlene was a Roseanne in training wasn't developed until she was older and her passion shifted from sports to writing. During the time Roseanne worked at Wellman's, I think she would have been more likely to brag about Becky, though the current writers insist that Darlene was always the golden child of the Conner family.
I agree with you about Mark; it's always a gamble to give a child actor a role that relies heavily on dialogue, in which register they're more likely to come across as mannered or forced. The show seems less interested in him as a character than it is as a concept.
Nice to see Louise given more to do this week, though I wish half of her screen time hadn't been spent with Harris as a scene partner; the latter's line readings tend to be one-note and familiar, and I've never been able to invest in her character. Segments involving the youngest generation of the family tend to be the weakest, IMO.
-
1
-
8
-
-
17 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:
And with that remark, they killed off Jerry.
I know this adds another continuity problem to a series riddled with them, but I'm glad they've retconned Jerry. He was a baby at the end of original recipe Roseanne, never factored significantly into any plot lines, and was away on a fishing boat during the first season of the revival. Why continue with the concept that the Conners had four kids if the youngest is never going to appear? Casual viewers are probably unaware that Dan and Roseanne even had another son after DJ.
I'm not crazy about the choice to move Mary in with her aunts; there are too many characters already, and I tend to find scenes centering on the youngest Conners to be weak. The writing and direction for Mark and Mary is sitcommy in a way that it wasn't for the child actors on the original show, and I found myself wishing they would be sidelined to focus on the adults last night.
-
12
-
-
On 8/14/2019 at 2:26 PM, sistermagpie said:
Oh yeah, it was blatantly fake. In the first season Piper was telling Larry not to watch Mad Men without her, clearly talking about a show that's still on. Then this season we're clearly dealing with 2019 and Red's making jokes about Russians leaking things despite having been in prison for years... They just embraced a science fiction bending of time.
OITNB had a floating timeline, which is relatively uncommon on live action TV shows (with the exception of soaps), but never bothered me too much. Every season takes place roughly in the present day, so if it’s 2018/2019 in S7, S1 is retconned as taking place in 2016/2017.
I totally see how this would bug people, though, because OITNB isn’t The Simpsons or a comic book series. But the writers and producers wanted to keep the show relevant to current day issues, which I understand as well.
-
7
-
-
21 hours ago, Duke2801 said:
I agree that Polly sucks. And I get that Piper cheated on Larry first—but wtf are they making it seem like Piper did something bad to Polly too? Am I forgetting something? Because from how I remember it, it’s Polly who really owes Piper the apology. She broke Girl Code 101.
I think Polly knows what she and Larry did was wrong. IIRC, Piper had Neri throw a burning bag of poop outside Polly’s house when she found out about the affair, and Polly responded by saying, “I deserved that.”
I think her clear reluctance to go to the dinner stemmed from understanding, perhaps more than Piper and Larry, that there are some things a friendship cannot recover from. She slept with her best friend’s fiancé while she was in prison, and is now having a child with him. For as much as Piper claims to have moved on and become a new person, that can’t not sting. Their friendship as it once was is over, and every future interaction is likely to be stained by bad history.
-
1
-
8
-
-
I like Zelda, and being that this is the last season and the writers probably wanted some closure on Piper’s relationship with Larry and Polly, I understand her suggestion for Piper to call them.
In real life, however, this would be a horrible idea after everything that happened between them. The dinner was super awkward and I cringed the whole way through it. Sometimes you just have to accept that the bridge is burned and moved on.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, Merriwind said:
So glad they didn't eliminate a designer before announcing the winner. No one needs to know that they came in last. Not winning has to be painful enough.
Agreed. I thought it was particularly cruel in previous years when the final two were left on the runway and Heidi would tell the runner-up "you're out." One year (Sean Kelly vs. Amanda Valentine), she actually emphasized how close the voting was and that Amanda barely lost. Sometimes it's better just not to know, especially with such a big prize package at stake.
Loved DvF as a guest judge. I always prefer fashion designers, or people in the fashion industry, as judges because they can give critiques other than "I would wear that / I would not wear that."
A solid return to form after the weak Lifetime years. Keep it up, PR!
-
9
-
-
6 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:
Laurie Metcalf has been nominated for a Tony!
Best Leading Actress in a Play
Annette Bening, All My Sons
Laura Donnelly, The Ferryman
Elaine May, The Waverly Gallery
Janet McTeer, Bernhardt/Hamlet
Laurie Metcalf, Hillary and Clinton
Heidi Schreck, What the Constitution Means to MeThis is her sixth (and fourth consecutive) Tony nomination. I read that she is the first actor in history to earn four Tony nominations in a row. Go, Laurie!
-
9
-
-
4 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:
What did Michelle win? Money???
The grand prize is $100,000. Winners of reality television shows usually can't collect their prizes until the show actually airs, so she has been waiting a long time, and after taxes she will have significantly less money.
There were more good collections than there usually are on a Project Runway finale, and I would have been OK with several outcomes. When Michelle and Dmitry were both spared elimination last week, I figured the judges wanted one of them to win, but I was rooting for Irina. She had a few missteps throughout the competition, but had more high scores overall than anyone else. I love her craftsmanship and how focused and driven she is. Even without the win, I trust she will be fine; she's very talented and is one of the few PR alums who still shows regularly at NYFW.
On a very sad note, her mother passed away from cancer less than a year after this episode was taped--Irina posted about it on Instagram. She was only 56.
Overall, I am relieved Project Runway All Stars has come to an end, and hope Bravo doesn't rush to revive it. Seven seasons over eight years was much too much, and watered down the value of the PR brand. If the show does come back, I hope it's with a new judging panel, and that they only do one season every few years.
-
10
-
-
I cannot imagine a scenario in which Irina is not the next designer eliminated. Even if she produces the most beautiful garment of the season, the judges will make up a reason to send her home. They love Michelle, Anthony Ryan and Dmitry are their golden boys, and they will want one international designer in the finals.
When it comes to actually awarding the win, however, I am not as convinced as some that Michelle has it locked up. I have always seen All Stars as a way to give a big check to a fan favorite by any contrived means necessary, and I don't think Michelle has ever been particularly popular with the fans. Moreover, she's a woman; with the exception of Dom, all other All Stars winner have been men. (I think Dom won, in part, because she was the only original recipe PR winner who competed on All Stars 5, and previous winners always win again on this show when they are up against non-winners).
My hunch is that Dmitry or Anthony Ryan will take it again, but I wouldn't mind a Michelle win. Her style is not for everyone, but I do think she is talented. Her winning collection from S11 is one of my favorites in the show's history (along with Irina's, as a matter of fact).
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Gummo said:
And really, has this season sat in the can that long? A year and a half? Yikes.
Both this season and All Stars 6 (filmed summer 2016, aired winter - spring 2018) sat in the can for a long time. It's a strange choice to make for a design competition, because trends change so quickly.
One episode in and I think Dmitry has a strong chance of winning the competition again. If not him, Anthony Ryan, Seth Aaron, or Sean; this panel clearly favors male designers.
I like Irina's designs very much, but am surprised to see her back. She was on All Stars 3 and was in the top three or the winner of several challenges. She was sent home for her first bottom three appearance, for a design that was the guest judge's favorite. Irina was very vocal about how unfair it was when it all went down, and it did seem like the judges were just looking for any excuse to get rid of her. Wonder how far she makes it this time.
-
3
-
-
On 12/28/2018 at 1:07 PM, enoughcats said:
Do I see Georgina still a part of this franchise? Any notion when it was taped?
This season was filmed in the summer of 2017.
-
3
-
-
Laurie Metcalf received a Critics Choice nomination for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for The Conners. Nominated in the same category is her real life daughter Zoe Perry for Young Sheldon.
-
12
-
S20.E14: The Finale
in Project Runway
I feel like every iteration of Project Runway gets criticized for its judging panel, and I think this has to do, in part, with permanent judges having the responsibility of justifying the producers' agenda, even when it's at odds with the quality of work being shown. It's a reality show first and foremost, and creating a gripping storyline, catering to specific demographics, or simply generating buzz is generally considered more important than pure design quality.
I was not a fan of Zac's during his time as a permanent judge -- I often found his critiques biased, mean spirited, and not particularly helpful during the Lifetime era, though I thought he came across rather well during this guest appearance. I think this has to do with him being better in small doses and not being all that invested in the outcome (Laurence is the only finalist he knew previously, and that was six years ago), allowing him to provide commentary with less bias.