dogdays2
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by dogdays2
-
-
Can't decide if it's the editing or the products selected to be shown, but I increasingly find myself totally uninterested in anything on the show. If this is "the best," I hate to see the stuff that doesn't make it to TV.
The baby prison seemed awfully complicated -- I defer to others on whether it will work or is even needed. Clothing (other than socks) rarely gets a deal. ZUUM screams product liability issues, something the Sharks typically shy away from.
I wish the window screen guy had spent (been given) more time explaining why his product was so superior. We've had the same window screens for 20 years and they seem . . . fine. In any event, changing them out is not a pressing issue in my life and I needed more understanding of why it should be.
-
7
-
-
The acting on this show reminds me of a high school play. No, wait, I've seen better acting in high school. Natalie standing there wringing her hands, saying "I've been unfair to Will." Seriously?!?!?
Maybe it's the writing. Who stands around in a public setting saying out loud, "I've been unfair" to someone? You might think it, but you don't say those words. It's just weird.
A TV producer once said that TV is about suspension of reality. You know there are actors on a soundstage but the show is so compelling that your mind willfully ignores that fact. When I watch this show, I'm painfully aware that these are (terrible) actors saying (moronic) lines written by (awful) writers. It ruins any enjoyment I might have because I'm thinking about the bad acting/writing vs. being immersed in what's happening.
I figured the measles guy would recover since they probably weren't going to kill off two people at the same time (CeCe and him).
As an aside, the neuro doctor character reminds me Spock on Star Trek (hear me out). He starts out almost as an automaton (no emotion or personality) and slowly is becoming more "human." Thankfully, this actor can carry it off. BTW, if you like him, he plays a small role in the new Midway movie.
I was also happy to see the return of Dr. Latham. He and neuro guy are the only ones I can stand -- and the only ones who can act even with the terrible scripts they're given.
-
13
-
-
Okay, I'll admit to dressing my (small) dogs. Small dogs need sweaters or coats in cold weather, so it's kind, not cruel. I also put them in more "fun" outfits. Our current dog actually likes her clothes. But I digress (and don't mean to start a debate about dressing dogs).
I've never really considered dressing LIKE my dog. Might do it once for a party, a joke/gag thing - definitely wouldn't be an every day thing. However, the price point was really high. Yes, dogs can wear stuff forever, but $40 for a doggie T-shirt is very expensive and another $70ish(?) for the human version. That's way too much for what would likely be a one or two time event. Make it $50 for the set (even if quality isn't super high) and I might be interested.
Count me as one who is more than tired of Mark's bullying. I wouldn't have a major issue if the product was so wonderful that all of the sharks really wanted a piece and he (or anyone else) made an offer first and wanted the advantage of doing that. But he does it just to be a jerk. I'd really love for a "contestant" to say, "Thanks, Mark, but a smart business person doesn't make knee-jerk decisions, so I'm going to listen to X's offer." If Mark pulls his offer, so be it -- they know they have at least one more coming.
The other products did nothing for me. If this is the best the producers can find, maybe it's time to end the show.
-
5
-
-
As a veteran, I was totally disgusted at how the writers vilified the military in order to advance the cause of moronic April.
Many times, the military relies on civilian hospitals and physicians for various reasons to treat service members (usually in an emergency but sometimes because they offer treatment not available at a military facility. I recall being sent to a civilian facility more than once during my military career). I can't imagine putting a military member's life in jeopardy the way it happened in this episode. Appalling -- in general, but especially a few days before Veterans' Day.
Here, Choi did the right thing. And the real military (not the make believe evil military in the heads of the writers) would have done the right thing in making sure the patient was healthy enough to move to a military hospital and then had her transferred.
The problem is that most people have zero personal knowledge of the military. And now, those who watched this show think the military is the incarnation of evil when the real military does care about its sick and injured service members. And the writers think that April was correct. She wasn't. She's an idiot. But that's where we are.
-
1
-
16
-
-
All I could think at the end was WTF. I figure they'll "save" Natalie from her fate because she hasn't fully recovered from her brain thing. Thus, it isn't really her fault. Or some such nonsense. Anything to keep her sorry a-- on our screen for another miserable week.
Seriously, though, can you even imagine a real hospital like this? It's insanity. Half the staff is (or has been) in bed with each other. Nurses routinely call out doctors. Doctors openly disagree in front of patients. Doctors constantly defy their patients' wishes. HIPAA is routinely violated.
I still can't decide if the problem is mostly the writers or the actors. Or both.
-
6
-
-
I don't think it's accidental that Glassman's view of the gun was better laid out and defended than his wife's. While some people, including many on this board, may not want a gun in their home, the fact is that there are many homes in this country with guns and many, many responsible gun owners.
The Glassman household consists of two mature adults. The chances of an accidental shooting are miniscule -- either of them is much, much more likely to be injured or killed in a car crash than with a gun.
But I'm sure we'll be treated to some episode where someone does get shot to prove the point that the writers were tying to make. So we can all say, "Ah ha, guns are very, very bad."
I also fully agree with those who thought: (1) the breast feel before surgery was inappropriate, and (2) Shaun's conduct in surgery was unacceptable. We (the audience) are presented with a sympathetic Shaun. And he obviously has great skills. But I question whether someone with the level of emotional challenges we see from him in front of patients should be a surgeon. This isn't to say that some MDs with autism can't do it. But ask yourself whether you would really and truly want Shaun operating on you or your family (not me) vs. being the one to diagnose what's wrong with you (sign me up for that!).
As an aside, I don't think it's ethical for the surgery chief to tell the patient that she either accepts Shaun as her surgeon or she has to go to another hospital. Patients have a right to select their doctors -- to force the patient to accept someone with whom she wasn't comfortable was very unsettling. I would have been ok had the chief tried to talk the patient into accepting Shaun, vs. threatening her if she didn't.
-
I actually get the knife sharpening thing and (I think for the first time ever) my DH and I actually looked it up. I have some very nice steak knives that I got years ago. They are dull, dull, dull. So dull we've stopped using them. We've tried sharpening ourselves, without great success.
We could easily go without them for a week and having the convenience of just shoving them in a bag and having them come back super sharp and be able to use them for a LONG time (since we don't use them often), is a big turn-on for me. I understand I could probably get them sharpened more cheaply but it means time (which I don't have) and effort to take them somewhere.
I now understand from above posts there may be a better self-help option. But I didn't know about it as I was watching (and other prob don't either) so this option could be very attractive.
I also agree the editing was terrible. I didn't understand how the bug thing worked. Also, I'm kind of surprised it's not a medical device. I know THEY said it wasn't but in due diligence I'd want to be sure of that, as it would bring in a host of regulations with which they're probably not currently complying.
-
2
-
-
Three thoughts.
I hate what the writers are doing with Maggie. The one constant has been her professionalism. Now, that is thrown out the window as she puts her own needs ahead of her patients, disrespects her friends and colleagues, and acts totally unprofessional.
The thing with Dr. Charles' wife was just strange. I think the writers were looking for some juxtaposition in Dr. C's mind between the brain guy and the wife but it was far too convoluted for me to figure out. I also realize that cancer patients want control in a situation that is often out of control, but this was a wacky way to depict that.
Third . . . with Natalie, I can't quite decide if the actress is terrible, the writing is terrible, or both. But her character totally grates on me.
-
8
-
-
If I have to see one more "stuck elevator in the hospital" scene . . . Seriously, has anyone here EVER been stuck in an elevator for more than a minute or two? Let alone in a hospital. Yet it happens on TV almost every week. And, of course, the patient has some life-threatening problem and whatever character is in the elevator has to perform some life-saving, bloody, unconventional treatment. Can writers not come up with something unique [like when the helo crashed on the surgeon in ER or the lawyer fell down the elevator shaft on LA Law -- both crazy but at least unique!].
-
5
-
-
Agree 100%. Once the light lady started to tear up, I fast-forwarded through her sob story. Most people over the age of 25 have overcome some hardship or suffered some tragedy. This isn't Dr. Phil. I also was shocked that we didn't learn anything about the product, marketing strategy, etc. I don't recall hearing how the product worked or even what it sold for (though maybe I missed it).
I could not believe the couple at the end didn't take the deal. $1M up front and 10% royalties in perpetuity (assuming due diligence was OK). The fact that the couple didn't understand basic business math doesn't bode well for their future. The sharks have the resources, knowledge and money to make a success of the product. Even if the product fails, the couple would be $1M ahead. While normally the sharks are just that, here I thought they were really trying to help this couple. Can't recall such a boneheaded move on ST for at least a few years.
-
13
-
-
Agree that the format leaves me cold. If (a big if), they get another season of this length, they need to shorten the audition weeks to 1 or 2 at most. We meet all these people and most of them don’t survive the cuts. It’s a waste of screen time.
I actually miss the “bad” auditions. Don’t get me wrong - some of it was painful but at least it was more entertaining than the parade of sob stories we got this year. There were 4-5 weeks of auditions - to what end? Did any of the featured audition dancers other than Madison make the top 10? If they did, I’ve forgotten
Then skip starting with 20. If they want to start with 10, just do it. Don’t select 20 and then, a week later, they’re gone. Like cannon fodder. And then only eliminate 1 dancer per week either at the beginning and end of the season. Let us get to know and enjoy the dancers. Even now, I have trouble remembering their names. Agree with those who want to see partnerships form for more than 1 week
Also, bring back the days when they picked their dance genre out of a hat. The randomness was nice because you didn’t get the sense it was rigged.
Eliminate one judge and add another dance for each team. You’d think we’d get different views with 4 but it tends to be mostly the same view. More dancing and less echoing from the judges would be welcome
I guess I want my show back - sadly, not sure it will happen.
-
1
-
15
-
-
18 hours ago, Ohwell said:
Where were their relatives?
Speaking parts cost money. And having a discussion with relatives takes time away from the oh-so-meaningful stares and words of April and Choi and Frick and Frack . . .
Not to mention that the lungs not working for him and working for her plot was telegraphed almost from moment one.
I find it hard to tell whether the writing is terrible (and bad writing makes even good actors look bad) or whether the acting is so bad that it can't overcome a decent (if not great) script. Or maybe it's all bad.
-
4
-
-
On 3/18/2019 at 9:23 PM, eel2178 said:
Then again, people in the military walk around with a bunch of ribbons pinned to their chests to show off all their accomplishments.
Not to hijack this thread, but can't let the above statement pass without comment.
Consider the "accomplishments" represented by the following ribbons/medals worn by the military:
The "accomplishment" of being seriously injured, such as losing your limbs, your eyesight and/or having severe brain trauma -- Purple Heart
The "accomplishment" of being a prisoner of war, held in captivity for months or even years, and tortured most of that time -- Prisoner of War medal
The "accomplishment" of risking -- and most often losing -- your life to save the lives of your fellow service members -- Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star
Comparing those stupid bracelets for 3-yr-olds to awards earned by our military members is an insult to all who served. You may not like the military, but don't insult them.
-
22
-
-
There was a point with the kid where it went from being kind of cute to being downright embarrassing. And that point came pretty early on. And that's on the parents. 11-yr-olds don't have the maturity or life experience to handle the ST. Heck, many adults are challenged.
It puts the sharks at a disadvantage b/c you really don't want to be rude to a kid. But you also want the parents to face reality. My personal view is that kids under the age of 16 can be there for the presentation but need to exit stage right during the business/negotiation portion. Kids can't own the company and can't actually make decisions -- contracts entered into by those under age 18 aren't legally binding. Their parents have to sign. So there's no reason for the kids to be there or pretend to make the decisions.
-
14
-
-
I would be surprised if, in real life, these folks would be allowed to work together, especially when there is a junior/senior relationship such as attending/resident or MD/nurse. Mixing personal and professional relationships creates all sorts of issues which is why most workplaces don't allow it. It is one thing to work in the same hospital (allowed) but not in the same dept. But this is TV land where reality is left at the door.
Speaking of which . . . Is there ANYONE on this show who has a normal marital relationship? Husband/wife (or same sex couple) who are happily married maybe with a kid or two? ANYONE???? I understand the need for drama, but there can be lots of drama with a working couple trying to juggle a couple of kids . . . It would certainly be a nice break from what we have here where NO ONE has a steady, loving relationship. It might also provide a nice juxtaposition.
Of course, this show isn't alone in that dept. I don't watch a lot of TV dramas but in every one I can think of (again, I watch very few), all of the main characters are single. If they were married at the outset, they either split/divorce or the spouse eventually dies/is killed. It's really sad.
QuoteAll you ever see is the intense acting where they show all these characters looking longingly at each other over the patients' heads. I sure wouldn't want to be caught dead in that hospital. On the other hand, that is probably how I would end up.
LOL at this! Literally.
-
8
-
-
I wanted to hate the blond with the huge entourage and ring to match . . . but didn't. Agree that she seemed mature and happy. Didn't like any of the dresses she tried on, but it's her dress and if she's happy . . .
I do wonder if the consultants are given additional financial incentives to get brides to choose a designer whose dresses can only be purchased at Kleinfeld (e.g., Randy, Pnina). Alternatively, do they pull more of those dresses to show brides and/or do they select brides for the show who have self-identified themselves as wanting one of those designers or the types of dresses they make (based on pre-interviews, budgets, etc.)? We see SO MUCH of Pnina and now Randy that it's not coincidence. And I assume Kleinfeld makes more money on their "own" designers than on others.
-
2
-
-
I have small dogs. It is absolutely true that leaving them unrestrained in the car is incredibly dangerous. They are projectiles. There are car seat belts (I have them) that hook into the human seat belt. The problem is that they, too, are clunky to use and the straps are so big (even in the XS size) that they overwhelm the dog. Also, small dogs can't see out the windows when sitting in the seat, which they actually like to do. And I have to hook and unhook the doggie belts every time I have human passengers. So I don't use the seatbelts and feel guilty about it every time.
I was laughing hysterically during the presentation. But there are some problems with their contraption. First, it does seem even more complex than the current seatbelts. Trying to hold your dog in that position while hooking all that stuff? Dog will be squirming and you're trying to hold and buckle . . . Second, I can't believe my dogs would be comfortable in that position for any length of time. It's just not natural for them. Third, don't see this working with larger dogs (even something like a beagle).
What is needed is a doggie seatbelt that is easy to use (easy to place on the dog and in the car) and, even better, can actually stay in place when not being used.
Finally, I don't think that you actually need numbers of dead dogs to sell the product. Most people who own small dogs love their dogs and also know the dangers if they are in a crash and their dog is unrestrained. (Ditto for large dog owners and they too should be restrained). Whether 1 or 1 million dogs are killed in car crashes each year, the only accident that counts is the one YOU might have. That is where the marketing needs to be -- do you want YOUR dog to die just because you have a fender bender? YOU are wearing a seatbelt. Your CHILD is wearing a seatbelt. Why isn't your dog?
-
4
-
-
QuoteOn 1/22/2019 at 11:51 AM, milner said:
I guess I am the only one who didn’t like this episode. It is a medical drama supposedly but has totally become a soap opera.
You're not the only one. Why can't there be ONE -- just ONE -- stable family relationship with parents, kids, etc. That presents its own drama and is more representative of real life hospitals. Yeah, this is TV fiction, but some sense of reality would be nice. It seems that on every medical show (at least the ones I watch), the doctors and nurses are all single and most of them are looking to hop into bed with a colleague. Again -- some of that is fine but there are only so many stories and, after a while, they all seem to blend together.
The whole state investigation thing seemed rushed. This is TV land, but it would have been more realistic to have it play out over two episodes -- they all come back from their outings to find they were under investigation. No way would an investigator leap to conclusions without at least talking to the participants. And, as someone above said, if there was a potential criminal issue, the individuals involved would have to be given the opportunity to consult with an attorney before making any statements.
Sean's GF annoys me -- and I'm not sure why. Glassman actually annoys me this season. I kind of understand why the writers went with the cancer storyline, but it isn't entirely working for me. Liked him better last year, though maybe that's the idea.
-
3
-
-
I was confused as to who was making decisions for the boy. It should be the parent with custody, which was obviously the mother. Who wasn't there. Absent that, I believe they need to get a court order. It seemed like the hospital was making decisions for a minor child and that seems incorrect.
The actress playing Ava talks like she has marbles in her mouth. I have no issue with her accent but I can't understand her diction.
I can't BEGIN to imagine the (figurative) mess that would have hit the hospital after the suicide of the dad. Issues with the policeman allowing someone to get his gun. The impact on the other ED patients, who would sue saying they were traumatized (even if they hadn't actually seen it). The press coverage -- can you even imagine in this day and age of social media!!! The responsibility of hospital personnel. The impact on the kid. And yet, after we see someone cleaning up the (literal) mess and Choi's long face, that's the end of it.
Finally, I am sick and tired of this show treating people with religious beliefs as some kind of nuts who always seem to do stupid things in the name of religion. Most religions include a few people go to an extreme -- in various ways. That doesn't mean the average religious person with deep-seated and deeply felt beliefs is a wacko. It would be nice to see a more thoughtful treatment of religion and its interplay with medicine. Then again, this is Hollywood. :(
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:
Do you think you could have found time to shave in the car on the way before putting on the dress uniform?
100% agree on this. NO WAY would a colonel (or any member of the military) show up in uniform unshaven at a military funeral , no matter how sad or depressed he is. Proper wearing of the uniform, including personal grooming, is drummed into you from Day 1. Not shaving (absent a medical reason) is disrespectful to the uniform, to your fellow members of the military, and to the dead person you're supposedly honoring. If you're so broken up that you can't shave, wear civilian clothes or stay home.
Also, the "intelligence was bad and we accidentally bombed/shot/blew up a bunch of kids" is SO overdone in Hollywood. Yes, those things occasionally happen (despite diligent efforts to avoid them). But it seems to happen in Hollywood every time there is a military story. I wish they could have come up with something more unusual . . . but this show never seems to shy away from taking the easy way out.
The cancer kid story was predictable. Showing the lungs being transplanted (into the woman, we presume) was so lame. I did feel bad for the dad and actually sympathized a bit with his melodrama from last week. As an aside, what is it with the ONLY people in the area who need a transplant who are a perfect match are always at this hospital and always able to see each other?? (Or was that Chicago Med that had that story line as well? Can't imagine it happening in real life).
-
3
-
-
I also worked as a candystriper. We delivered food and flowers. We replenished icewater and changed TV channels. We got extra blankets. We were not allowed anywhere near the ER. And we wore blue stripes, not pink. This was in the 1970s; I'd like to think things have progressed a bit since then in terms of apparel.
It was drummed into us that we were not permitted to do ANYTHING of a medical nature. If we saw a patient in distress, we would call for the nearest medical professional. But we were actual candystripers, not actors.
-
3
-
-
It's really a shame. IMHO, the cast of Code Black is quite strong. But they're given nothing to work with. The plots are either recycled, contrived, or simply idiotic.
The kid in the plane (from the prior ep) is straight out of the 1970s show Emergency! (with a little help from the movie Apollo 13). In the Emergency! ep, we actually got to see the kid (who had to fly the plane under direction) so we were actually invested in the characters. Here, I didn't care whether mom or daughter crashed or landed, lived or died. Not to mention that you don't just "wake up" from a makeshift defibrillator and immediately start flying a plane.
The fire plot is straight out of the recent movie about the AZ hotshots -- except they all died. Anyone who has read about fire shelters knows they are intended for one person and firefighters are trained to do everything possible to avoid needing to use one. Also, experiencing a fire from one is a horrific experience. Here's how it is described: "The experience of waiting out the fire in a shelter is harrowing. Some veterans have compared it to living through a nuclear blast. A typical entrapment last from 15 to 90 minutes and the urge to flee can be overwhelming. But that's where the training comes in . . . being inside the shelter is quite difficult for firefighters -- days and weeks and months following the incident."
Here, two people with no training jump into the same shelter and emerge ready to go on with their lives. Not to mention that trained firefighters just abandoned a doctor and EMT in the middle of a raging fire. Seriously? I get that they're trying to ship Willis/the EMT and make them look like superheros, but this is getting ridiculous. Do the writers even do basic research? Or simply ignore what they learn?
Not that any of the other plots were better.
Even strong acting can't save this mess. And it makes me sad b/c this could be a great show.
-
8
-
-
He's 54. Would that all men his age would look so good! Must agree that he shines in his role on CB. Despite it's faults, which are many, he is probably the one reason I keep watching.
-
7
-
-
What the ??? was that (episode)?
End-of-season cliffhangers work when there is only one and it either is the end of a long-build up or plausibly comes out of nowhere. You either have to care or have to be shocked. Think "Who shot JR" from Dallas several decades ago.
Here, it's as if every story/character had to have some cliffhanger and the writers did whatever it took, even if it was out-of-character, out of nowhere or made no sense.
In the out-of-character world, I give you the Dr. Charles fiasco. As far as we know, he is a rational, trained professional psychiatrist who has seen his share of psychopaths, personality disorders, etc. Yet Reese's father has him all bollixed up. And, when he suspects this guy could be a murderer, instead of going to the police (who investigate crimes) so they can take them to the attorneys (who prosecute crimes -- Law and Order, does this sound familiar?) so that the guy could be brought to justice, he decides to conduct a one-man investigation and leap to conclusions instead of turning over the evidence he was sent to the police, who actually do this for a living. For example, how does anyone know that the dead student didn't give the monkey to Reese's dad? How do we know it's the exact same one? This is why there are trained investigators. And, then, Dr. Charles -- who has always put his patients first no matter how nutty they are -- decides (we are led to believe) to allow Reese's father to die b/c he (Charles) has decided the guy is guilty.
In the out of nowhere world, I give you the Goodwin's ex-husband story. Obviously they had to have not one, but two cliffhangers for her. So her ex is brought in after attempting suicide though we've had no indication that he has any mental health issues. Yeah, his GF/wife died, but they hadn't known each other for long. It's not unheard of for a surviving spouse to contemplate suicide after losing a spouse of many years. This relationship was closer to many weeks.
In the makes no sense world, I give you the proposal. Halstead is proposing to Manning based on what (other than writer delusion)? When last we saw him, he was in a bar looking for love. How does he know Manning is ready for marriage -- have he ever discussed the concept with her? What about her kid? When last we saw them together (other than the brief car scene after the shooting), her kid was lashing out at him. Has he tried to get to know the kid? In real life, most rational adults actually have conversations about the future before one person proposes.
As an aside, I did not care one whit whether the conjoined twins lived or died (and the dolls they used looks so fake, it was almost laughable). Anyone who has read anything about separating conjoined twins knows that often one is missing leg or an arm and they have huge scars, etc. It's a very traumatic procedure -- I would have expected some support for the parents from friends, family, social workers (but I guess on TV you have to pay more actors and that ain't happening with the size of this cast). I pretty much FF'ed through the entire plot line.
It was all one convoluted mess and causes me to question whether I actually want to watch again in the fall.
-
7
-
S11.E11: WisePocket Socks, Wanna Date, Kreyol Essence, LoveSync Button
in Shark Tank
· Edited by dogdays2
I thought Barbara was self-justifying after the young woman stood up for herself. IOW, Barbar thought she'd collapse and then could say, "I told you so." Instead, she spun it into, "I made her better." Right.
The "Shark scam" thing at the end was weird. I understand that, from a legal perspective, advertising that the product was on ST when it was not could constitute false advertising. However, it's not really a "scam" in that ST doesn't vet the products they air nor do the sharks or the producers stand behind/vouch for the products just b/c they were on the show.
The fact someone is falsely claiming they were on ST might make you question their ethics, but doesn't necessarily mean the product itself is bad or a "scam." And anyone who thinks a product is somehow superior solely because it aired on ST is probably too dumb to understand the "warning" anyway.