shipperx

Yep. Daddy gave that ring to little Killian. And even without spoilers, that clip would convince me that Killian is totally going to 'die'.

Here is where I get wary: I've seen this phenomenon before in other fandoms. Fans with a lot of time to think and analyze decide that the telegraphed ending is to too rote and too obvious, that surely there will be a 'twist', that what was said in screen was really misdirection, etc. I love fandom and analyzing stuff. But in my experience more often than not the writers of shows aren't misdirecting by being 'too obvious'. They're telling you what they intend to do.

People must have clearer JPEGs than I've seen. How do people know that it's 'weathered'? It's a dark stone, but granite comes in various colors (as does limestone). And it's actually just set decor so who knows. Are there more clear shots than those that have been linked?

Re: the 'conversation', my bet is that it isn't going to be that Mary vindictively outs Edith. I'm going to bet that Mary feels the bite of being the very last to know, that absolutely no one felt it safe to tell her the information. That's a pretty big indictment of her that will actually hurt her feelings. Yeah she has been rude and dismissive of Edith, but this boils down to everyone in the family not trusting Mary with a 'family' matter. Ouch. So Mary is going to righteously confront the family with her 'betrayal' and this inadvertently outs Edith to Bertie, which causes everyone to glare at Mary. And then Mary has to reflect that maybe her family had reason to avoid trusting her where Edith was concerned, taking down her indignation down a couple of notches. Of course Edith and Bertie will work things out and by the CS Edith and Mary will cry pax with both admitting to having said/done things they shouldn't have so that there is some semblance of familial peace.

There is no way on any planet that the conversation will ever take that course. Mary is never, ever going to allude or even hint at the fact that she lost her virginity in a one night stand to a foreigner who had the temerity to die in her bed. Not going to happen. Never going to happen. Mary would never ever say that out loud. She might grumble about Edith being a resentful ne'er-do-well who has had her share of rudeness but Mary will never ever reveal her own flaws and mistakes to someone who doesn't worship her. While as a modern audience we may dismiss the Pamuk incident and side-eye Edith for snitching given the potential for backlash against her family, in the eyes of society of the time the 'appripriate' response to a debutante losing her virginity in a one night stand with a foreigner would be outrage, thus Edith's response wouldn't be criticized --Mary would be. And that holds for the 20s. Mary is not, will not , ever going to expose herself to potential ridicule by admitting to this transgression, especially when what she's after is a takedown. Not going to happen. (And would come off as wildly hypocritical if she did as theoretically she'd be trying to out Edith as a fallen woman). Mary may gripe about something Edith did 10 years ago. But she'd never stipulate what... And probably wouldn't mention something from ten years ago because it would mean she's been carrying a grudge over an incident for ten years which would mean admitting to actually giving a flip about her sister in any form whatsoever, even if only for a grudge, which is not an easy thing for Mary to do. (And I'm not at all convinced that Mary even has a grudge about 10 years ago, just general amorphous lifelong disdain).

Orpheus tried to lead his wife Eurydice out of Hades, so in Geco-Roman mythology someone tried. And Hades not only wasn't the devil he wasn't even particularly dastardly. He was simply the lord of the dead. It wasn't a place of torment in Greco-Roman mythology. ( in Disney, he was a villain though.). Then again I am probably influences by Roberta Gellis' novel re-telling of several myths-- including the Minotaur, Eurydice, and the story of Hades and Persephone where Hades was the romantic hero of the tale and Demeter a hyper-controlling mother-in-law.

I don't want to get into an either/or debate. No only is this not a zero sum debate but I'm one of those rare individuals who like both characters. With all that said, why in the heck would that not count??? They were cursed. That was them-- cursed-- but it was them. If Emma could remember, it meant that this was them. I can't see how it doesn't count just because it involved one of the multiple memory wipes/rewrites that have happened in the show.

No doubt it is time enough to bond. But there's always been a whiff of desperation in Mrs Crewe's reactions that has seemed odd in context. She wasn't a woman desperate to adopt or seeking to adopt. It wasn't a goal or a thing to be longed for. She was a mother of four of her own children who was having to housewife on a small farm before the times of appliances whose husband arrived with a child he said belonged to a friend she never knew. Pragmatically speaking, that's a LOT of work for one woman. An unsought and unanticipated 5th child in addition to her four is a lot to handle. Yes, she can certainly love more than four children. Yes, she can love her adopted child. There's no cause to weigh adopted against biologically hers. She can still hold Marigold incredibly dear. But... Considering that Edith placed the child there to be close to her, Edith was doing the benefactress thing giving money for Marigold's future and visiting the child from almost day 1. There was not a single instance of Mrs Drewe being anything more than grudgingly civil (and barely that) from the very beginning ...to what was essentially the daughter of her husband's employer. It was oddly counterproductive for her to reject Edith's offer of financing a future for Marigold when denying that financial interest meant that rather than their income covering 4 children with Edith aiding the finances of the 5th foundling's future, they would have to cover the finances of their four AND the foundling, while directly barring the door to --and thus offending--the daughter of her husband's boss. It's laudable to bond with the child but the speed of her possessiveness and the hints of desperation about it from almost day 1 always made me wonder. Had she lost a child? Had she had a recent miscarriage? She wasn't a childless woman who had sought out or had longed for adoption. She already had four children and her husband indepentedly insta-produced another saying someone she never even knew thought they should raise it. Not only was there never a hint of ambivalence in her behavior, but she has prioritized the new child to the detriment of her other children's potential finances by rejecting outside aid for the one they were taking in... and that was from very early on, not even including her choices rejecting the bosses daughter by barring her from the house. And once the fostering was revealed to her, she went directly to Cora about the scandal. Mrs. Drewe was lucky it was Cora, many a society matron would have had the Drewe family discredited simply to bury the scandal quite deep, ensuring that no one would listen to 'that farmer', because that's the way aristocrats often roll. Luckily, Cora is anything but ruthless... but Mrs Drewe didn't know Cora. She didnt know that Cora would not behave that way, but she risked it. So even knowing the truth re Marigold's maternity, Mrs Drewe was willing to take risks on...at best the infinitely faint hope that Cora would ...what? Browbeat her daughter into giving up her child to Mrs Drewe? Or was it for the purpose of revenge? Or was it sheer angst or hysteria, that she had no goal but wanted to vent by bringing the whole thing to her husband's boss's attention (because what harm could come by exposing the boss to scandal?) Mrs. Drewe clearly cares for Marigold. And yes a year us more than enough time to bond. She deserves compassion. But her reactions from almost day one have had hints of desperation, defensiveness, and in regards to family finances counterproductiveness bordering on recklessness with regards to the farm and Mr Drewe's employment, even before this incident. She was treated unfairly. Undoubtedly true. But she's also seemed curiously high strung from the beginning.

The ONLY? Bit of an exaggeration, no? I'm pretty sure that extraordinary outs for bad plotting have happened for other Crawleys as well once or twice. For instance, I can remember a fiancé discovering her betrothed snogging a Crawley in the parlor then conveniently dropping dead to get out of the way, then giving her blessing to the pair via ouiji board(!) no less, only to top it all off with her father inexplicably leaving his entire vast fortune to the pair thus rescuing the entire Crawley way of life for the 'other woman' (including a letter soothing the unfaithful betrothed's conscience so that he would take the money to save said estate just as the Crawley wanted.)

Mrs Drewe has always seemed a little emotionally off, IMHO. I also think the incident last year where she flew into hysterics over Edith standing in the garden with Marigokd was projection. Edith hadn't taken Marigold anywhere. Mrs Drewe was placed in an unfair situation from the beginning and her husband should never have kept the truth from her. ( and I know Edith wanted it kept secret in general but I don't remember whetherbEdith demanded he not tell his wife or whether he decided it was 'better' this way.) Either way while it's sympathetic that she is handling this poorly, her reactions have often been seemed to outpace a situation all along. She has always seemed a bit much.

Showed they at least had the awareness that there was no damn chance Mary would develop any sort of compassionate filial care taking aspect to her.

I would think a thirty year olds sex week with Tony would be less scandalous than a guy dying in 19 year old Mary's bed. After everything that's happened at Downton, it should take a lot to shock any of them now.

I'm going to hold off until we know how this goes down. Surely, Mary wouldn't take it as her place to unilaterally decide custody in a situation she has not been involved in at all. Even believing that Marigold is only a foster child, where would Mary have either the interest or the authority to make any choice here? What would be her motivation? So I'm holding off judgement until more is known about the situation.

You could almost reverse this statement for me (except I don't think that Tom/Edith is the best option for either of them. Acceptable but not optimal) I just don't see Mary/Tom as a fit. I just don't and therefore don't root for it. I'll accept it if it comes to pass but I'll find it a bit of a downer. Not that I'm rooting for an Edith/Tom ending either. I'd prefer them each finding happiness elsewhere, but I do want them to find happiness. Mary also, though she isn't my favorite character. I just can't picture mary and Tom making each other happy (or even comfortable) long term The truth is I prefer a Mary/Tom/Edith sibling-like triumvirate.

I kind of view it through the lens of 'Redshirts' a book by John Scalzi where the secondary character all had free will and their own lives (despite very limited and incomplete backstories) until they cross paths with a protagonist and suddenly they're yoked into doing whatever is necessary to facilitate the protagonists plots (until they started noticing that If you were a redshirt on an away mission with part of the deck crew, you most likely didn't come back) until they hatched a plan to break out, find the author, and demand that he write better scripts. ). Anyway, changing 'off screen' actions wouldnt change the plot. To change a plot took a protagonist because plots serve protagonists not Red Shirts. Hook (and Emma) were Redshirts. They didn't drive the plot. They had to change a protagonist And I noticed that not even heroic Rump could escape his bone deep shelfishness.

I don't think its about power of magnitude. I think its because the problem was the book. They were trying to stop the book, and Emma and Henry weren't in the books plot. And killian wasnt a protagonist. He was a deck hand. He probably didn't get a narrative in the book so his sacrifice wouldn't change the ending. Second I don't think Emma was just saving Regina. They didn't say the dark one was taking over Regina. It was snuffing out the light. It had just pelt from the apprentice. And either it was going to keep going person to person etc until it snuffed out the light. It could only be tethered to one person and therefore fought if the dagger was used. Emma wasn't saving just Regina. She was saving everyone.

Yes to this entire post. The hatred is just too exhausting. It's a TV show. Sometimes it's hurried, dumb, an ill planned. That happens. It's not something that is finely crafted over extended periods of time. It's churned out quickly because it's network TV. It's always going to have 'could have done better' as part of its nature because of the way network TV is produced. It just isn't crafted to withstand exacting scrutiny. So is it fun? If yes, I watch. If no, I consider stopping. And my experience with fandoms for shows is that they can be quite fun but entropic in nature. They all inevitably devolve into partisan nitpicking negativity because of the nature of online fan interaction. Love my time in fandom, but fandom can be crazy (and often is). It's not just a Once thing, though the negativity pervasive in Once's fandom isnt fun these days.

I thought the setup made sense. We aren't supposed to think what Emma did was unforgivable. They made sure to shoe us that Cruella was a bone deep villain who had committed multiple murders. We, the audience, are not meant to view what Emma did as unforgiveable. She was reacting to someone threatening her child. The point is that EMMA will rip out over Cruella's inability to kill Henry. The point of the inability to kill is to cause Emma angst, not to turn the audience on Emma. It was calibrated to maintain the audience's support in Emma while shaking Emma's belief in herself. On another issue, if Cruella's mom didn't want Cruella to be evil, why the frell did she give a baby a name like CRUELla? (That's even ignoring de Vil). You don't hang a moniker like that on a baby and hope they become sweetness, light, and unicorns.)

Fanwank: seems the reason Hook doesn't consider Ursula getting her happy ending to run counter to 'villains can't have happy endings' is that he views himself as the villain of Ursula's story. She was the sweet mermaid that he corrupted ergo she wasn't the villain-- he was.

Wouldn't Durst's lawyers have the security footage as part of discovery for the trespassing case? Getting that footage was probably part of the negotiating leverage Jerecki spoke of when talking about their cooperating with Durst's lawyers by sharing their own film footage. And yeah I side-eye Jerecki a great deal. I also laughed at the discussion of Madrid with Jerecki et al saying that Durst was being truthful. It was a sign of how far down the rabbit hole they had gone because behind the camera guy was right. Are you kidding me?! Durst is a narcissistic pathalogical liar... But of course (eye roll) he wouldn't lie to THEM. (And inevitably he was. Of course. ). Which also makes me rather doubt Durst's characterization of his mother's death even before reading his brother state that Durst wasn't even there. Why did Jercki fail to state the counter point when apparently Doug Durst's statement was in the New York Times before the episode aired. If he was being 'open minded' why not have both views stated? I also don't believe Durst keeps those photos for sentimental reasons, unless one intends 'trophies of his kills' as 'sentiment.' And while I think it possible his family's wealth and influence (and possibly his father) help disincentivize the initial investigation of the 1st wife's death, I don't see how they would benefit continuing to do so. How much more could the family's rep suffer after admitted dismemberment? In fact Dougie seems (understandably) to be quite nervous about his killer brother coming for him. Seems that at this point even they would feel safer with this dude locked up.

That's how I took it too, and it came on the heels of her saying that she can't revert back to old habits. I took it not as Marco 'forgiving' so much as if you do the 'right' thing (which in this case was to apologize) you might accomplish your goal whereas if you revert to you old evil habits you thwart them. Positive reinforcement: you do good things and good things might happen because of it. Nothing positive came from bullying a child, but admitting you are wrong and apologizing might actually be more constructive.

As someone who has avoided the boards because I increasingly find board discontent diminishes my viewing pleasure, I had no expectation of a pregnancy. There's been no hint of it within the show and so no reason to consider it. I also didn't think that the show was in any way saying that Snowing was evil. They're heroes. They repeat it constantly. They are the 'good guys'... But that they showed some black and white thinking and that this sort of black and white thinking leads to self righteousness. Snowing meant to ensure good and were unwilling to compromise their beliefs because of it and that this led to Maleficent 'losing' her child (I noticed they used 'lost' not died. Is Aurora going to turn out to be her baby? Or is it going to be Emma's runaway friends back story?). Anyway the 'secret' seemed to be that Emma has the ability to be good or evil (as does everyone). Their inflexible binary thinking had unintended consequences. That's not the same as malevolent intent or that Snowing are bad guys or evil, just that they got self righteous (which happens) and lost some of the nuance because of it. Better than last week which was dull. And Aurora is going to factor into this somehow, isn't she. ... And possibly Emma's friend Lily as well.

I don't spend much time wondering where Violets old nurse made broth. The whole thing was written by a guy whose knowledge of the matter is that soup is delivered by caterers. Where it was before that is a mystery.

I didn't actually think Mary was reluctant to take Edith's hand. I interpreted it as surprise that Edith reached to take Mary's hand. Mary never changes much. She's shocked anyone might try to change that toxic dynamic by laying down their (verbal) swords and saying pax (however temporary it might be)... Mainly because Mary wouldn't have done it and it is therefore a strange and near incomprehensible gesture to her. Mary was more surprised and caught in mental consternation than rejecting.

I don't think she did it for the sons. I think she did it because of why she said. They would be assholes to her. They would be assholes to their father. They would make their lives ugly. Given the legal problems my neighbor's adult asshole stepson has given her after her husband's death and the hell he's made of her life the last two years, I can say that I think Isobel was being practical and possibly downright wise.The broth story was utterly stupid, though I did get a laugh out loud at Spratt initially wanting her to whip one up on the fly. Hey, Sprat, it's 1924. She can't open a can of Swanson's. A broth is going to take a while since she would need to stew a whole damn chicken!