WedgeOfSpite

I think that Katya would "deprive us" of staying in the competition, if it was causing issues with her mental health. I am glad that Dela chose to do what was best for her in the end. Not for the show. Or for the audience. Indeed. Considering that Katya recently cancelled all of her 2018 appearances/shows to take care of herself mentally, and to deal with her addiction issues ( http://outnewsglobal.com/rupaul-star-katya-cancels-gigs-2018/ ) I would venture to guess she would get Ben's thinking. Ben originally didn't want to come on All Stars for the reasons that ultimately led to her leaving. But she came on despite that because she thought she could get beyond them, because she loves Drag so much, because she respects the show so much, and what she think it is accomplishing. But she found out she couldn't get beyond it when actually confronted with it. I don't hold it against someone to try, but not be able to be as successful in conquering their issues as they thought they could be.

I liked Monica's take on the bakes, and didn't feel she strayed too much of the brief. I felt that she was creative, and had an interesting take on it, while still keeping enough in the parameters. And that most of the time what she did was cooked well, and tasted good. So that yes, even in blind bakes what she did was rewarded as such. The problem she had it seemed to me, was that she tended to too sweet. Which I agree is a problem with deserts in general, and part of why I have no problem resisting sweets. Well that and my time as being as working in a bakery. But it seemed like Monica took the judges feedback to heart, and dialed back on that. Shame she couldn't do better in the showstopper, as I think she would have gotten a deserved win, if she had. But she didn't, and therefore allowed Olivia to slouch into winning. Antonio had this reoccurring issue of being a bit too simple, and that was what did him in here. Which is a shame, as I like him overall. I liked all three bakers prior to the final, but I ended up being pretty pissed that Olivia won. I mean much as I liked Olivia, she had a tendency not to be able to finish things, as her weakness. And that weakness persisted to the final, where she wouldn't have been able to have presented one of her final products for one of the challenges, if not for the combined help of Monica AND Antonio. That doesn't say "best baker" to me. Far from it. So while Olivia had good ideas, good flavours, to my mind, if she didn't have help, she wouldn't have won. So pfffft to her win. Which as I liked her prior to the final, wasn't how I was expecting to feel after the final.

Well I agree about being Dan's being a huge judgey asshole. Maybe that's why Serena had such issues telling him stuff. Eventually she told the other members of the NON Judging Breakfast Club because they wouldn't judge her, because they all knew they weren't in a position to judge her. In comparison Dan had started judging Serena, and making her feel like crap for not meeting his standards, since episode two. When upon actually knowing her one whole week in their time, after years of stalking, er admiring her from afar, he was a judgey asshole to her at the brunch. As Serena herself said, she had done some things she wasn't proud of, and that's what she was trying to move past, and be a better person. But nope, that wasn't good enough for Dan. He kept that up the next episode when she, stupidly, tried to get his approval again. It's only after she had been humiliated by Blair with 'admitting' going to the Ostroff Center and he found out her motives for doing so were pure, that he forgave Serena. Though he was right back to judging her in episode four, when he didn't give her a chance to explain that she didn't know what Blair's mom had done. And once again, Serena stupidly sought his good opinion, instead of telling him to get bent once and for all. So yeah, I wasn't terribly impressed with his judging Serena for not telling her 'terrible' (in actuality super lame idea that she felt she KILLED A MAN!) secret. Which when she did finally tell him, even he admitted was a hard thing to just come out and say. Oh and I'm sure her once disappointing him with her past had nothing to do with his breaking up with her at the wedding. This coming after she totally forgave him for doing whatever with Georgina, because she did know that it was her not telling him what was going on, that caused him to walk away. And to be fair to Dan, I don't consider what he did quasi-or any kind of cheating. He broke up with Serena with that "I'm out." So while what he did with Georgina was pathetic given how easily he was manipulated, and odd given how long it took him to be physical with Serena, it wasn't cheating to my mind. But what I personally don't get the whole 'Dair called each other out on shit, and didn't enable each other.' If they called each out on things (and I admit to not paying a lot of attention to their scenes, because they alternately bored, and bugged me with their wannabee screwball comedy/romcom bullshit) it didn't stick. Blair was still a snob while being "friends" with Dan, or later being romantic with him. She was still a bully to her minions when "friends" with Dan (during that horrid bridesmaids stuff) or being romantic with him (the diary stuff). And generally horrible to Dorota the entire time. Dan did enable her (inbetween judging her for not changing). He never tried to stop her from being generally horrible to Dorota. He didn't tell her not to: a.) have minions in the first place b.) stop being a bully to them. Hey, maybe she doesn't really love Louis, maybe he's not such a great guy after all? Yeah, write his wedding vows! Blair has some stupid pact with God? He doesn't tell her to get a fucking grip, and not just go along with her insanity, he plays along with it. He certainly enabled her intellectual snobbery with his own, culminating in that horridly pretentious dinner party. Which ended with Blair saying she wasn't going to be a part of his world, and his going along with it, saying that they were going to be each others world. Sure there were times Dan didn't enable Blair, but then he was her only friend by that point, having subsumed all of Serena's previous friendship role/time. And if Blair called out Dan on being a judgey, hypocritical, asshole, I missed it. And it didn't stick either, because he remained a judgey, hypocritical, asshole throughout season four, and five when they were "friends," and later lovers. And he certainly was that way during all of season six.

Moi aussi. Never watched a second of the show, and could only stomach five minutes of this interview, because of that annoying baby voice. And those mannerisms? ugh. Never mind the utter tripe of content coming out...all in that very annoying voice. How did y'all watch this for years?

I haven't seen anyone who is happy that five girls were molested. I sure everyone wishes it had never happened. I think many people wish what I wish, that this terrible family was never given a platform to spout their hateful lifestyle choices in the first place. I feel badly those women had their molestation brought to light of so many people, but that would never have happened if their father wasn't such a greedy jackass, who also wanted to use this TV as a "ministry" of hateful things. Do I feel badly for these women having to do damage control in this interview, and spout the company line? Yep, feel badly for that, too. But I don't feel badly that the Duggars as a brand (which they themselves spent years making, and getting rich from) is being called out for the gigantic hypocritical crap it is. I love the light that is being shown on their creepy Gothard ways. I know Jill and Jessa say that except for the means media! they're totally fine from the thing that wasn't even that bad! and forgiveness! and that's their choice. Fine. But I think they could still benefit from some real therapy, and having some validation. So as much as they don't claim to need it, I want that for them. I think most people want nothing, but the best for them personally, as survivors/victims/whatever term they choose to use. Even though I personally am even less okay with how their views on things like LGBTQA still = pedophiles, hasn't changed. As long as none of them get TV shows going forward, I'll do nothing, but wish the best for them in the obscurity I want them back in.

I'm absolutely livid that those women were made to be mouthpieces to denying their own abuse. And I am especially livid that in doing so, that other abuse victims of the same kinds of crime, had their experience/pain diminished as well. I don't blame them for being brainwashed drones and doing so, but what they were saying is not a message abuse victims should a.) be forced to say b.) hear. Especially from a fellow victim. So their parents suck even more for making them do this, and be a party of that. I am also totally skeptical of their forgiveness, in that I don't think they had a choice in that either. After all, what is there to forgive if nothing bad really happened to them? So clearly their feelings were given zero validation, which they display to this day. And while it clearly sucks to have one's abuse made public, that's also on their scummy parents deciding to take them all on national TV and packaging themselves as moral arbiters. All while knowing what their son had done to five girls. But maybe there is some good that can come out of it being public, because maybe they're finally hearing from a lot of people, that what they went through really was wrong. That they have a right to be upset, if they want to, however they want to. That it's all Josh's fault, they are not in any way shape or form to blame. And that their parents weren't looking out for them, the way they did their son. Sure their brainwashed minds aren't going to let a lot in, but maybe some of that gets through to them, and gives them some deserved validation.

But X-Files was set up with conspiracies from the pilot on (Trust No One). Sure it had MOTW, but it always had govermental cover-ups (and how big were they?) as part of the foundation of the show. The problem was that over time that became so elaborate that having it make sense, probably would have been impossible. That does seem different from Grimm, which granted I don't know a lot about, but it seemed to me to be more MOTW based, with some conspiracy stuff (I think there was some Royals hints in the first season with Renard? or at least I remember from the episodes I watched, that he was part of a larger plot) throw in. Though it seems that the execution of that was very sloppy. So that one could count on the MOTW aspect not to suck as much, maybe? Anyhew, I can see wanting to get back to more of the Wesen part of the show, and less of the Juliette, various babies, various Royals, drama. So the show seemed to do a good job of cleaning house with the Royals aspect. I hope I hope I hope that they do as good a job with Juliette aspect, because I just can't with her. Her character was really bad the last few episodes, and this 'I didn't know they were going to kill Kelly' crap in the last one, was well, crap. And oh yeah, before she tried to kill Nick again. Which leads me back to being happy Trubel put several arrows in her.

I actually enjoyed the final. Granted that may be because I am a very casual viewer, don't expect much from the show, and got the one thing I really wanted, which was a dead Juliette. It looks like The Royals were tied up nicely too. I haven't had enough viewing experience to get sick of them, per se, but I wasn't impressed by them just in the episodes I did watch. Though I will say I did think the guy who played Kenny was an okay actor. Which may not seem like much, but given the amount of scenes he had with BT, the ability to act was appreciated by me. I was neutral on the character, though certainly wasn't sad to see him get offed by Nick. I don't think the type of accent will matter, by the way. Not like most American's would know the difference between a Cockney accent vs RP accent, but the whole going off with cops after being arrested, and ending up dead? Hmmm. Even if Wu made up the story that the guy escaped, got out of his handcuffs, they had a fight, Kenny had a weapon that Wu then used to save his life, rather than his say, gun or a taser, he still would had called it in. Oh well, handwave moment for sure. Juliette whole thing about not knowing they were going to kill Kelly? Sure, Jan. How did they think they were going to get Diana from her from a Grimm...by using harsh language? She told them all about the neighbors (who were also slaughtered), and set Kelly up. Then she Boots Were Made For Slow Walking down the staircase when Kelly was fighting for her life. Which she heard, and despite being the superpoweriest Hexenbiest that ever biested, she did jackshit to save Kelly. She also did jackshit to save Diana from the people who she worked with to kill Kelly, excuse me, was just soooo naive about. I did think there was a flicker of...something? when Juliette was in the car with Kenneth, and he was ordering the troops to go after Nick to kill him. But it was gone in a second, and BT just can't handle that kind of nuance so it was back to her impression of a Redwood. And speaking of bad acting, yeah, the person who plays Trubel is also not good. But the character was interesting enough in the last two episodes, and killed (pleaseohpleaseohplease let it be stick) Juliette, that I'm willing to let it slide more. I will see if the show keeps Juliette dead in the next season, if they do I might keep watching this show.

Other than being Gossip Girl, and everything attendant with that. I mean as Gossip Girl that means he had a hand in the death of Blair's baby, and almost killing her. So dunno about that one. Which yes I know Dan being GG had holes in it...in keeping with the rest of the show's rather thin grasp of logic, and continuity. For example, everything leading up to the IP was a cluterfuck of logic, characterization, and continuity. Case in point, in the pilot Chuck's mother is alive and living with his father, that ceases to be in the next episode. Then she's Evelyn having died giving birth to Chuck. Wait no, now she's Elizabeth and alive. No she isn't, she's just a liar working with Jack. Then she's alive again, and this time Diana. No wait, Elizabeth is his mother, and alive. Wait maybe she's not his mother, and Jack is his dad, maybe it's both. Nope, neither one, Bart is Chuck's f'real father...and back from the dead, as well! But not for long, and he took to the grave (f'reals this time) who Chuck's mother was. So yeah. Dan' being GG never bothered me logic or continuity-wise. Well no more than anything else. So I personally Nelson Muntz Ha Ha! when I think of all of Dan's actions at the end of season five, all of season six, and culminating in his being GG. I look at it as karma for the fuckjob they did in seasons three and four, to characters, and relationships I did like, to prop up his character. Reap met sown. But speaking of something else (kinda), was thinking how Blair used to look so kick-ass in the earlier seasons (and sooo bad in season five) and was trying to think of my favourite outfit(s) of hers. I couldn't possibly think of just one. Though the blood orange (obligatory, so pretentious, it's fucking red!) Oscar De La Renta during the train station scene in 4.1, does spring to mind. That whole thing was just shot so well. Love the evocation to Monet's La gare Saint-Lazare. Worst one, well obviously season five, which again, too many to choose from. My mind goes to that yellow monstrosity in 5.6. And what was with the fucking hats for her, that season? The weird mustard seat cushion she was wearing during that horrible god pact story, is just inexplicable to me.

She had her own plot lines in seasons two and three, despite being the romantic interest of Chuck. And I would say the plots for everyone became increasing stupider, more focused on romance and OMG moments. Blair wasn't the only one who suffered from that. Blair was in the W magazine plot with Dan, not outside of anyone else. She was romcom bickering with him. She was Harry Met Sally split-screen watching the same films over the phone with him. It's where she became "friends" with him, and it's where he starts to fall for her. Because that was all of of their romantic set-up. So no, Blair didn't have a storyline outside of anyone else, and one that wasn't romantic (in its design) with the W internship. On the other hand, her school at the beginning/mid season three was a non-romantic plot line. She still had a plot line in season three with Serena. At the beginning of season four, she still had a school plot line, she had minions, and she plot lines with Serena. Until Serena starts getting replaced, bit-by-bit as Blairs best friend by Dan, in that season, which only gets worse the next season. I agree that Blair's plot lines became too romantic. That really started mid-season four, when there is the start of the Dan/Blair stuff, then the Louis stuff taking off, and of course some bits of Chuck romance along the way. But the nadir for Nuthin' But Romance Blair is in season five. When she has two, usually three guys, in love with her the entire season, and her stories revolve around romance around them. And the dumb...it burns just remembering it. The god pact? The dowry? The salon, and seriously? And although I gather you didn't watch it, Blair had plot lines that were just hers again in season six. Though they had a very stupid romantic tie, at least she was doing shit again. She had a job that ultimately she proved herself to be good at (all by herself). She learned that she needed to keep her fierceness, but not be a bully. She had minions again, and though I wasn't fond of how little we got of it, and how shallow the reconciliation was, she had stuff that she did just with Serena again. She was even back to being good at scheming again. I missed that Blair. While I had issues with the execution of a lot of stuff in season six, the bones of more good stuff was there for the Blair character, than I saw in season four and five. After season two I think the writers used Cards Against Good Story Telling to tell the show. Would explain a lot. Just have certain characters on some cards, then someone randomly throws ideas/places/scenarios on the others. "Hey, I got the card 'wolves on the highways of New York' with cards 'Serena 'and 'Nate.' Okay, so Serena is off with Nate's cousin, who is her....lover? Okay, of course! What else. And uhhh Nate's in love with Serena again/still/whatever. And uh Nate's cousin is married, and uh Serena is only with him because she found out something about her mom. Why would that make Serena want to go with a married loser? Handwave, because next Serena is in a car accident because there are wolves on the highway, in New York. And later Nate is with Serena at the hospital still/again/whatever loving her. Genius! It's a wrap."

If only it stopped with those stupid adults, but it doesn't. Instead they literally spread the consequences of their stupid actions. Anyhew, speaking of stupidity (the obvious segue way to Brandi) what is she going to do in the next season, if she comes back, and KimR doesn't? Or even if KimR does. Not like all the other HW won't have vindication about KimR, so Brandi's repeated attempts to say otherwise and going against all the other HW as part of that, will now be met with even more scorn. And rightly so. I tend to agree with Kim's son Chad, that Brandi is toxic for an addict (not to blame, but not helpful). Though to be fair to Brandi, even she at one point questioned whether she would be the best companion to an addict. Of course she ignored that, because it would have left her without a storyline, without an ally, and without a way to get back at others like Kyle.

Juliette was told that by two people, one of whom later approached her with a cure/suppression. Which she promptly destroyed. Not destroy the cure? Anyhew, BT has the right to feel however she wants. I generally don't have a problem with how actors feel about their storylines, characters, the show, except when I think it colours their acting negatively (or if they have more power, the show itself *cough Juliana Marguiles cough*). As long as they sell what they're supposed to sell, whatever they think off camera, generally doesn't matter to me. But what I think from reading BT's comments here, is she may be letting her view of things negatively impact her (already limited) acting choices. BT seems very invested in a BAD ASS Juliette, but it's where BAD ASS is very one-dimensional. Which shows in her acting. So Juliette is all sneering, calling Adalind bitch and whore, petulance, and using her power to do whatever she wants. What she calls BAD ASS, I call middle-schooler. And if Juliette is supposed to still love Nick, I'm not seeing it. To be fair to BT, I don't think the writing has done enough to show that love is still in there. But I do think that was what the flashbacks in the last episode, were supposed to convey...but from watching that scene, it was guesswork on my part. Maybe they'll write more towards that in further episodes. Which yeah, that should be fun to watch be the justification for the redemption arc. Though I'm sure BT will miss Juliette's super-powered BAD ASS ways.

Just in the US, and until 2/21/15 -8,793; preventable diseases -146, 623. So no way can Brandi match that kind of ugly...despite her best efforts with fillers. Wait, maybe it's a Picture of Dorian Gray situation. Jenny is throwing her inner ugliness onto Brandi, and remaining pretty, and well preserved. Nyah, Brandi just has a crappy surgeon, and worse taste.

As background, I watched my first live episode with 5.22 for Dair (was told they were AMAZING!), and binge watched the entire previous series between that and 5.24 (I'm an insomniac who works from home, I have a lot of time on my hands) If I may Steven to your Stephen...(and forgive the book afterwards...I have feels! --as the kids say) I think Blair's character got assassinated, along with Chuck's (and arguably the show as a whole), starting when the show decided to put her with Dan. Which they decided they wanted to do starting during three (guess when). Granted Blair didn't get the purposeful screwjob the Chuck, and Serena characters got. Because they wanted Blair to be blameless in the break-up, because they wanted her to remain the most popular character on the show to sell B/D. Though why they felt screwing over their arguably second-most popular character, and certainly most popular couple of the show as part of that was a good idea, I'll never know. But I don't think Safran cared about things like ratings (obviously) or good story telling (even more obviously) because he was living out his sad pathetic high school dreams? (I seem to recall readin an interview where he said the writers used their high school memories). But this time HE, er Dan, would win the most popular person!! In your FACE sporties like Nate and richies like Chuck! Or something. I dunno. Because whatever its genesis, it was the worst case of writer projection/obsession I've suffered through since Gooze's Jasus obsession on General Hospital. I used to joke that Gooze wrote Jasus scenes with a bottle of lotion and a box of tissue. Double that for Safran/Dan. A good example of Jasus syndrome is when a character not only cheats on their girlfriend, but does so by kissing the girlfriend of their best friend...said best friend apologizes to them, for said cheating. Well played, Safran. Gooze would be proud. What I don't get is why Savage/Schwartz put that idiot in charge, and left him in charge as long as they did. Other than that Schwartz didn't care about the show after he got Chuck (the show, obviously not the character from GG). No idea about Stephanie, other than that I guess they wanted to do Summer/Ryan on the OC (bitch!) and regretted not putting them together? Maybe. I read an article in Variety (if I recall correctly) where they said they could do all the projects they did (at the time they had a lot, snerk to that) because they were lucky to be able to delegate to the good people in charge of running those shows. Or was it because the ratings were beginning their ne'er ending descent in season three, that she/Schwartz would be willing to hear about mixing things up, as much as they did, and hopefully create the kind of buzz Chuck/Blair got the show originally? I headcanon it kind of like in Soapdish (my second reference to that underrated film today) wherein the director who's trying to make the actress he has an obsession with, be the big star of the show. So he pitches to the network types who own the show, that the current star murder a mute homeless person. Very topical! Sure to be a big ratings winner! is what he sells (and is sure to further weight the deck by casting someone with the "face of an angel") The suits are lazy enough/desperate enough to go along with it. 4.20 was surely sold that way. Safran himself was selling the public line (the one he no doubt told Savage/Schwartz), but that is not how he set up that episode (nor do I believe that people didn't get what he was really trying sell). For whatever reason it happened, the nadir of Blair's character to me was season five, and was (not so coincidentally) the pinnacle of Blair/Dan, when she had little that made her Blair, left. I was struck the other day about this when re-watching one of the last scenes of the Salon Of The Dead, where Dan is like, "our relationship is our world." Which first off, is incredibly unhealthy. Just on the face of it, and period. And while I had originally just negatively contrasted that to season 3.08 when after fighting with Serena (and Serena shoving Blair's face into a cake) and Blair saying their friendship was over! Blair tells Chuck that she has him, and that's enough. But Chuck knew that was crap, and arranged (schemed) a reconciliation between Blair and Serena, because he knew Blair really did love/want Serena in her life. So that's how I originally viewed the scene. But what I realized in my most recent re-watch of that episode, was how sadly, pathetically true that was for Blair at that point. Harkening back to what Blair said about the IP, that she was so lost in her relationship that she was willing to do anything for it, and that was wrong. But then she immediately slapped/broke up with the guy who had done that (rightly so, and fuck you, Safran). But despite what she said and did, she did in fact have an actual life outside of Chuck. She was in school, not the one of her choice and struggling in it, but she was still in school. She was friends with Serena and Nate --both of whom who backed her up. Nate told his best friend that he deserved to die alone for what he had done to Blair. But when Dan tells Blair, "our relationship is their whole world" to Blair. It is. For her. Not for him. He has a(nother) book he's working on, being lauded in magazines, getting feted by the Young Lions Club, and he's getting offered an amazing opportunity to go to a writing workshop in Rome. She is...being made fun of in magazines, getting rejected by FIT, making a fool out of herself (in one of the only good dresses she wore that season --thank you Elie Saab) in front of the Young Lions Club. And Dan feels so threatened by having her be the same city as her ex without him, that she eventually agrees to go to Rome to support HIS great opportunity...as his girlfriend. She is going to shop! and look at art! while HE has an amazing opportunity relating to his field. As for having Serena and Nate? just look at earlier in the same episode when talking about the salon (and seriously?) she and Dan were going to throw. Blair doesn't even dignify with a response, the idea of inviting Nate. Serena? Well she didn't want it to be awkward, so best not to invite her either. So yes, at the end of their Salon (and seriously?) Of The Dead, yes, her relationship IS her whole world. Not quite true for Dan, but ya know...that's healthy love for ya! Also I guess I would say beyond that, what exactly were the Blair characteristics that supposedly were different when with Chuck? What was "assassinated" by being with him? Establish the parameters, as they say. Because to me, Blair's character before being with Chuck (a total of six episodes), was with Nate for years. Despite Nate not really being comfortable with the real her (we see her lying in front of him about her mother calling, for example, while she's scheming with Chuck to fuck over Serena), and seeming not to love her, the way she loved him. He seemed to care more about Serena, than her. He seems to be with Blair out of a sense of fondness, duty, and habit. She's with him because it matches the movie in her head, the cachet it brings her, she loves him (in a way), and it's expected of her. Nate cheats on Blair with her best friend (something he has in common with Dan), and lies by omission for a year by not telling her about it. Blair forgives Nate this indiscretion and lying to her fairly immediately, and instead blames the woman he slept with. So first season Blair, before Chuck, seemed to forgive her at-the-time boyfriend, a lot of stuff, in a short amount of time. Before Chuck (those six episodes), Blair is an elitist, scheming, slut-shaming, bully. She's also wounded by a crappy parent/home situation, intelligent, fierce, fiercely loyal, has great hair/make-up and wears great clothes (hey, part of the show's early appeal was its look). I think a character on the show called pre-Chuck Blair a 98 pound, doe eyed, bon mot tossing, label whoring package of girly evil. Blair is kind of a monster in the first few episodes, yes, even before being with Chuck romantically. In fact in the very first episode, and arguably in the second("are you wondering what Chuck will say? Chuck likes to talk about his conquests, not his failures"), Blair doesn't give one damn about what Chuck did to Jenny,and she's got to have a pretty good idea of what happened. Nope, she's just pissed about Serena, and doing whatever she can to destroy her. That's pretty fucked up, and that's pre-Chuck Blair. But we see that Blair isn't just a monster when tries to connect with Serena in the pilot, pre-finding out about Nate. And again when she doesn't want to hurt Eric in Poison Ivy, and really when she realizes that Serena fell on her sword during Blair's scheme to protect Eric. So speaking of seminal Blair, what I consider a core characteristic of Blair is set by her reading her letter to Serena. It is showing her hurt, exposing her soft underbelly, that her fury/what she was doing to Serena arose from her love for her, missing her, needing her. That Serena was incredibly important to her, and she loved Serena. "Where are you?" Blair/Serena's friendship to me, is a huge core Blair characteristic. And I would agree, was established before Chuck romantically got with Blair. Now if you disagree that is a core Blair characteristic --Stephen to my Steven. Though let me just say, Schwartz/Savage did say that Blair/Serena were the show's true One True pairing. But Blair in season 5 is kissing Dan in front of Serena. Knowing Serena still loves him, and while ya know, Serena's grandmother is dying in a room behind her. And in season five I can point out many a scene where Serena helps Blair, but speaking of that core characterization, I can't think of one scene in season five wherein Blair supports/help Serena. The one time she maybe was going to help Serena...oops! she ends up kissing the guy that she knew Serena was in love with, more than once. So if being friends with Serena friendship is core pre-Chuck Blair, it was nowhere to be found in season five's Blair. Going back to the salon (and seriously?) episode as an example, Blair doesn't want to invite Serena to her party with Dan, because Serena might judge them. Not that it would painful and horrible for Serena, but ya know, might harsh their salon (and seriously?) mellow. I think the whole Death March to Dan/Blair that started in mid-season three, had really reached its Blair character assassination zenith in season five with her: not being in school (even Nate was supposedly in school with his internship fig leaf). Not having a job, oh other than wanting to be a pwetty pwincess (because yes, being Chuck Bass's girlfriend and not Hillary in the State Department is different than marrying a Prince and taking his name, how?) Nate -- who? Serena ---who? to screw her. Blair couldn't even scheme properly. Even the character's clothes, hair and make-up, were for crap (again, part of the show's original appeal was its look). It was only the last two episodes of season five that any part of that, came back. Oh, and not coincidentally, when Blair/Dan were starting their inevitable (and welcome) implosion, and Safy was bounced. Sorry again for the book. I grant some of this was informed by my past viewing history with crappy-ass, pet-character-shoving, show-destroying, showrunners, in how I viewed parts of the show. And I think binge watching can effect how one views things. I wasn't on boards, I wasn't real-time living this stuff, and getting outraged, and wondering what would happen next, for months on end. I just pressed "next," and occasionally 'yes, I'm still watching. Leave me alone Netflix! You know I have no life!!' Just offering my perspective.

If only that were universally true, than Body Count http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html Jenny McCarthy wouldn't look as good as she does in that picture. Brandi? Yikes! What the actual hell is she doing to herself? I never get people not only start getting work like this done, then keep at it. Maybe that's why she drinks so much? So she is never looking in a mirror without "beer" goggles telling her she is looking fucking fabulous! Not like those menopausal hags!

I don't hate BT, I know nothing about BT. I just think she sucks as an actor. I have no real investment of the show, so for myself, I can just comment on what I've seen, which is whoa! BT's acting does the show no favours. Though yes, the writing seems to be illogical, I still have seen other actors bring enough nuance to their roles, so that I saw something in them, even when being villainous. That in fact, it's a time some actors have really brought it, And that was probably the intent here. DB as Angelus has been mentioned here. DB started out pretty weak in the pilot (though to be fair, not only was he a newbie actor, but the writers themselves hadn't even decided what Angel was), I personally thought he got better as the show progressed, and certainly was able to do Angelus vs. Angel by the time that storyline happened, mid season two-on (versus mid-late season four). I do believe the Juliette character is going to be "rehabilitated," and stay on the show, and I personally don't think the actor is helping. Sure the writing is placing the character in a corner; going after pregnant women; setting afire to a beloved prop; setting up the lead's mother to be slaughtered; then taking the child that was brought with said slaughtered character...is a bit much. But I think there was supposed to be something happening with Juliette's conscience/mind with all those flashbacks in this episode. Otherwise why included them?. I think they were trying to set up that Juliette was still in there, being good. Maybe? Maybe not? Maybe Juliette was thinking 'hey, does it seem like I'm wearing more winter clothes than other characters? It is spring, and other characters seem to be dressing more to that? is it so that I can wear these cool boots? These Boots Are Made For Slow Walking, and that's just what I'll do. One of these days these boot are going to slow walk over you.' Because the acting gives me nothing, it's so flat. Granted I have no idea from the writing of what's going on with Juliette, but I also have no idea of an internal life of the character, possible struggle, possible goodness, or even being an interesting baddie! from the acting. And I think that the show wanted Juliette to at least being an interesting baddie. ETA: anyhew, I'm kind of interested to see what happens next, and how they do keep Juliette on, and possibly reintegrate her in the Scoobies. Because dude, being part of putting your exes head in a box (least fun variant of Dick In A Box, ever!) is a lot to overcome.

I do too, but it is over-the-top, and I don't think she needed to go down that route. But then I feel that way about most of the plastic surgery I see. I haven't watched this show before this season, and wouldn't have started if not for seeing some funny stuff about the Amster-slap (the .gif of Kyle leaving was so funny), and that I have some fondness for LisaR and EileenD from my soap watching youth. But I'm always struck with how similar the women all end up looking, due to their plastic surgery. For most of them, it's all lesser versions of that cat woman, at least to me. And yes, I think Brandi's recent fillers and work is waaaay worse than anything LisaR has done. LisaR at least still looks human, and can smile.

There are others, but this was the picture I saw shared most about her from the Met Ball. Not disagreeing she used to be very pretty before plastic surgery, but was so Lisa Rinna.

Given the memes I've seen of Kris Jenner's Met Ball appearance this year, I don't think the bad plastic surgery is LisaR's alone. That being said, she had less, and less horrendous work done at the time of the trial, so going with Selma is a better move.

Reminds me of Soapdish, "how I am supposed to write for someone with no head?" But maybe that was an old soap rule, but from when I've been watching, even seeing the dead bodies on-screen (and say...their organs being donated to other characters), doesn't prevent characters from being brought back later. Not that I think Kelly will be brought back. I think she's not merely dead, she's really more sincerely dead. I don't really watch this show, caught maybe a few episodes throughout the years. But some .gifs on my tumblr made me want to see what the hub-bub about Juliette was about, because she was one of the reasons I couldn't get into the show, to begin with. So I watched starting about 4, 5 episodes back, to present. And in the sense that the character and actress were one of the reasons I didn't watch the show, I'm enjoying what her character has become. But dayum! BT did not get better as an actress from when I watched. Like at all. DG has gotten better, and the actress who plays Trubel (really?) isn't a good actress either, but her character at least was somewhat interesting. Love Rosalee and Monroe, like Hank, Wu and Bud, mostly like Renard (and all their respective actors are competent to good). Nick remains somewhat boring, but not overwhelmingly so (and DG is better, though still not a great actor). Claire Coffee should have been cast as Juliette, she can act and has tons of chem with the Scoobies. But I'm not a long-term or invested viewer, at all! so I don't have the frustration that people who have been years into a show would naturally, and rightly to my mind, feel with Juliette's descent and actions. I might watch next year, just to see how they try and get out of this? Because I don't think the Juliette character is going anywhere.

The urine was added to the body to up the content of adipocere on the body. So that when they tried to remove it, they would damage the bones.

For the first time in a long time, I re-watched this episode, and yep, still like it a lot. And loved at the end how Brennan to Cam's very natural "I don't know if I can do this to him," about working on Sweets was "Yes, you can. This is a set of remains that will give us the man who killed Sweets.." Which I think is a pretty fucking awesome mission statement of the whole show. That's what they do, and why. And another reason I loved this episode, is that original Bones wasn't just some robot, they made her less human starting season five. So annoying. So that scene to me was great with the human interaction of her and Booth clasping hands to support each other before, that she was supportive to Daisy, and while still being herself moved by seeing Sweets' dead body, she was fierce about using that to find his killer. Like I said, I really liked this episode. I really liked all the characterizations throughout it.

I kind of liked the character of Sweets at first, but started disliking him as the show seemed to be showing too much of his character, especially as it came at the expense of the characterization of Booth. You know, the guy that used to be really good at reading people and doing things like interrogations, and figuring out people's motivations? So if Sweets being gone means the show might get back to Booth being more competent in those areas again? More power to getting rid of Sweets. But that doesn't mean we're stuck with Daisy, does it? Can't she decide she wants to raise her/Sweets child with her family? somewhere far far from DC. (my fingers are crossed) though to be fair, her character didn't grate last night. And I'll agree, that should have been my first hint of impeding doom for Sweets. I liked last night's show, and hope they can keep that tone/quality for the rest of the season. Some quirkiness is fine, but I'm one of those that think they pushed too much of that in later seasons, to detriment of the show.

I hated Tara, and while I get that her life makes it so that she appears mousy, she's really not blah blah blah. She was a BORING character, and that wasn't helped by a not-great actress. And Tara/Willow had zero-chem as a couple. Sure, Willow had anti-chem with Kennedy, but even that isn't enough to make me root for Tara/Willow or Tara anything. I was overjoyed when her character was killed off. Huzzah!

I agree about many of these. What is this last season of That 70s Show I've heard people speak of? I agree, never happened. But to add --a show's whose last season I have never watched all of it, and never will --Veronica Mars. While season two wasn't as good as season one, I still liked it and thought it was really good television for the most part. And everything about Logan/Weevil teaming up (with or without matching capes), was great. But season three was just horrible. Not that least of which is what it did to it's titular character --she was mostly unlikable to me, and never really called on that. And the crap with the straw feminists --you know the ones who commit sexual assaults (that Veronica jokes about), and set up a fake rape. And speaking about rape -sure! why not have Veronica blame her rape on almost rape victim, Madison instead of oh say, Dick. The guy that was going to rape Madison. No, blame the victim, go commiserate with the attempted rapist and drink out of his flask. And way too much Piz at the expense of Wallace, and way too much setting up Piz as the "nice guy" we should all want/be with. The third season was so bad that I was happy it was cancelled, and I thought I would never want the show brought back in any way, shape or form. But happy ending --I will say, the Kickstarter video brought back my love of the first two seasons, from it's season 3 death spiral of rage. So much so that I ended up donating a few hundred bucks, and I got a movie and book I liked, and that redeemed the show, and Veronica's character.